Latest Thread Images

is mp3 320kbps good enough for sennheiser hd 598?
Sep 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM Post #76 of 129
"I'll take 128K AAC over 128K MP3 any day of the week. I used to think it was hot air when Apple claimed their (old) 128K iTunes standard was the equivalent of 256K mp3 quality, but I have since come to agree with them. Beyond that, I am very happy with their current 256K downloads, although I still rip all of my CDs to WAV then convert, keeping my lossless 'originals' for posterity."
 
In blind listening tests they perform exactly the same. 
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 1:28 AM Post #77 of 129
Quote:
nicholars said:
Ok then fine I dint care tbh... I am not being agressive or defensive I just honestly cannot believe you people (who own expensive headphones and source equipment) cannot tell the difference with 128kbps mp3
 
Yes I agree you are correct 128kbps is identical to non compressed audio....
 
Infact I am going to delete all my audio and rip it to 128kbps to save some disk space because the quality is so great.
Click to expand...


Easy there buddy, here's a quick and simple test to try out.

http://mp3ornot.com/
 
To pass, I expect at least 25 trials at no less than 100%. I got 25/25 myself, and I still agree with Holo that for some stuff, the differences at 128k are small, if not, completely transparent when not paying attention.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 4:34 AM Post #78 of 129
popcorn.gif

 
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:01 AM Post #79 of 129
I did that test a few times and guessed it right every time...
 
I am not being defensive or agressive or any of those things I just find it strange that people would spend £300 on headphones and source gear then use 128kbps mp3...
 
And also puzzling how people cannot hear any differences...
 
Oh well "each to theyre own" as they say.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM Post #80 of 129
Quote:
nicholars said:
I did that test a few times and guessed it right every time...
 
I am not being defensive or agressive or any of those things I just find it strange that people would spend £300 on headphones and source gear then use 128kbps mp3...
 
And also puzzling how people cannot hear any differences...
 
Oh well "each to theyre own" as they say.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.
biggrin.gif

 
A few times isn't enough though, as it's easy to get 100% with only four or five tries.
 
I think my total Stax rig is something like $3.5k, and I still primarily listen to either ~100kbps live broadcasting music, or music from Youtube.
 
Some say, I'm doing it wrong.
tongue.gif

 
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:07 AM Post #81 of 129


 
Quote:
deadlylover said:
Fair enough.
biggrin.gif

 
A few times isn't enough though, as it's easy to get 100% with only four or five tries.
 
I think my total Stax rig is something like $3.5k, and I still primarily listen to either ~100kbps live broadcasting music, or music from Youtube.
 
Some say, I'm doing it wrong.
tongue.gif
Click to expand...



mmm IMO that is crazy and you should be listening to at least 320kbps mp3 with a system like that. Unless you are joking lol.
 
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:15 AM Post #82 of 129
Quote:
nicholars said:
mmm IMO that is crazy and you should be listening to at least 320kbps mp3 with a system like that. Unless you are joking lol.
Click to expand...

 
Aahah not joking one bit buddy.
 
I'm not so picky about the way things sound except it must be laid back and calm. I have the critical listening abilities akin to a bucket of rocks, so most of the musical information just flies over my head anyway.
confused.gif

 
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:05 PM Post #84 of 129
Tbh I understand the theory behind mp3... I suppose it is a pointless conversation... If you cannot notice the difference then that is fine use 128kbps...  If you can notice the difference then listen to higher bitrate....
 
Personally I can notice the difference and listen to higher bitrate but if you cant then who am I to argue with what YOU hear lol.
 
It just seems a little odd to me to spend loads of money on source gear then use heavily compressed mp3 for the sake of a few MB when you can buy a 32gb microSD card for £30.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:21 PM Post #85 of 129


Quote:
nicholars said:
Tbh I understand the theory behind mp3... I suppose it is a pointless conversation... If you cannot notice the difference then that is fine use 128kbps...  If you can notice the difference then listen to higher bitrate....
 
Personally I can notice the difference and listen to higher bitrate but if you cant then who am I to argue with what YOU hear lol.
 
It just seems a little odd to me to spend loads of money on source gear then use heavily compressed mp3 for the sake of a few MB when you can buy a 32gb microSD card for £30.
Click to expand...

Difference between gear far surpasses differences between bit rates above 128kbps.
 
 
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM Post #86 of 129
Hmm ok well we will have to just "agree to disagree" on that because personally I think 320kbps sounds quite a bit better overall then 128kbps.
 
I will stick to listening to 320kbps and FLAC personally because
 
a) It does sound better
b) It removes any possibility of artifacts
c) There is no real reason to listen to 128kbps
 
I amjust not sure WHY you would want to take that risk for no reason after spending all tht money then paying overly compresed audio.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM Post #87 of 129


Quote:
nicholars said:
Hmm ok well we will have to just "agree to disagree" on that because personally I think 320kbps sounds quite a bit better overall then 128kbps.
 
I will stick to listening to 320kbps and FLAC personally because
 
a) It does sound better
b) It removes any possibility of artifacts
c) There is no real reason to listen to 128kbps
 
I amjust not sure WHY you would want to take that risk for no reason after spending all tht money then paying overly compresed audio.
Click to expand...



What makes you think i listen to 128kbps audio. 90% of my music is 320kbps. I have some below that but not much. I listen to 320kbps to be safe. But for my ipod touch which has limited space i will convert the files to 128kbps to have more music. 8gb of space is not enough for music.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM Post #88 of 129
Quote:
nicholars said:
I amjust not sure WHY you would want to take that risk for no reason after spending all tht money then paying overly compresed audio.
Click to expand...

 
I'm with Holo, if I ever have a choice I'll always go for the higher bitrates or lossless, but unfortunately, there is no choice for most of the stuff I listen to.
 
The whole point of us pointing out the differences between 128kbps and lossless for us is small, is so that we don't feel like we're breakin' our balls if we ever have to use 128kbps for whatever reason.
 
Sep 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM Post #89 of 129
I would normally side relentlessly with those who say "Actually, the compression really isn't that bad," but Youtube-quality audio? 
 
Please tell me you're talking about HD instead of 240p videos (sound bitrate scales with video quality setting).
biggrin.gif

 
Sep 28, 2011 at 1:46 PM Post #90 of 129


Quote:
deadlylover said:
 
I'm with Holo, if I ever have a choice I'll always go for the higher bitrates or lossless, but unfortunately, there is no choice for most of the stuff I listen to.
 
The whole point of us pointing out the differences between 128kbps and lossless for us is small, is so that we don't feel like we're breakin' our balls if we ever have to use 128kbps for whatever reason.
Click to expand...



What is it exactly that you listen to that isnt available in about 128kbps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top