[jaieger]

I'm not sure where to put this, so for the sake of half-assedly making this on-topic, I'm using 2-week old Nuforce NE-6s.


So, after looking at the file quality of the songs used in testings, I decided to overhaul some of my favorite songs on my ipod with better quality recordings. My song in question is Trivium - Into the Mouth of Hell We March. Now, on the 192 kbps file, it sounded very full - the bass was in the background, propelling the sound to make a cacophany in my head, which is an effect I quite like in general, and very much so with this song.


And when I tried out the 320kbps one in comparison, while it was certainly more crisp - the drums sounded like...well, they sounded real i na way I've rarely heard in my other song files. Incredible. However, the overall sound was incredibly thin, for some reason, and what was lacking was the prescence of bass...or that's what I think - it felt like the bass wasn' tthere, there was no impact at all during the portions of the song where, in the 192 one, it felt like the bass was just propelling the guitar, muscling it.

And I think it'd be illogical for a higher-quality sound file (but I'm quite likely to be wrong) to be lacking an instrument altogether, so...has what I've thought was bass all this time not bass, and it's actually present in the 320 one but just more naturally-sounding in a way that I don't yet recognize? (if so, this'll be a bit of a revelation as all those bass notes I thought were bass notes...might not be. LOL)

 

[Drag0n]

Ive never heard that drastic a difference between 192 and 320, but maybe im deaf...lol

 

[jaieger]

yeah, i didn't expect there to be nearly as much difference either..

 

[Thrashingshrimp]

It's easy to misjudge certain instruments and sounds when you have a low bitrate/quality music file. Though I've never heard a huge difference between 192KBPS and 320KBPS, at least this gives you a reason to re-rip!

 

[deviationer]

Maybe you have listened to low quality music files for so long that your brain perfers them over high quality mp3s or lossless?

 

[cck5]

i think there is a good difference in 320 to 192. and can agree sounds like bass, cymbals and crowd change

 

[RallyMaster]

There's a more noticeable difference between 192kbps and 320kbps than from 320kbps to FLAC.

 

[goranilic]

How do you make 320kbps? I'm using iPod Classic (w/iTunes) and every time I transfer music I got 256kbps. How can one increase that trough iTunes? Sorry for hi-jacking.

 

[RallyMaster]

I don't do 320 kbps much (mostly VBR V0) but I get my music either from ripping CDs I buy or getting it from Amazon which is at least VBR V1.

 

[ethan961]

The difference between 320 Kbps and FLAC is so trivial you'd be lying if you say you could choose the right one in a blind test.

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RallyMaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's a more noticeable difference between 192kbps and 320kbps than from 320kbps to FLAC.

I agree. Sort of like going from iBuds to.... some top tier IEM. Then choosing and comparing top tier IEMs with each other. Once you get to a certain level the differences get smaller and smaller (to some degree).

goranilic
How do you make 320kbps? I'm using iPod Classic (w/iTunes) and every time I transfer music I got 256kbps. How can one increase that trough iTunes? Sorry for hi-jacking.

Go to edit preferences, advanced, then click on the import settings. Change that to mp3 320

EDIT: Oh and yea you're definitely "hearing what you think you're hearing"

I can't listen to anything under 320 as to me it just doesn't sound as nice. Other than bitrate the original recording has to be of good quality as well.
Oh and before I forget, after you convert something to a lower bitrate, converting it BACK up to lossless or a higher bitrate does NOT increase the sound quality. Once it's compressed there's no going back. (However you can change between lossless formats (ALAC, FLAC, WAV etc. at will).

 

[goranilic]

@Young Spade - thank you very much!!!
What option to choose for "Quality" medium, medium high, high or highest

 

[playingwithfire]

I don't think anyone can hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC without a top end($1000+?) system. Even then it will be extremely difficult. I swear I can hear the difference pretty clearly from 128 to 192, 192 to 320 is even a bit trivial to me(mostly improve the naturalness of instruments and sometimes that just doesn't matter with some electronic records). 192kbps is okay and 320kbps should be fine for most people.

BTW: sometimes I swear a certain album is in higher bitrate, I ripped the Flight of the Conchords self titled album awhile ago to 128kbps mp3 using LAME and that honestly is one of the clearer, believable sounding albums in my library...

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethan961 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference between 320 Kbps and FLAC is so trivial you'd be lying if you say you could choose the right one in a blind test.

Actually I can. I did a blind test on T51 with RE0 (both are well known for resolution) and I can tell it almost every times. However, it does take full concentration in a very quiet room. The difference is very small, but FLAC does sound just a tiny bit fuller, more extended. In any case, the difference is so so small that it is pretty much impractical in real live usage so I am quite happy with 320Kbps.

 

[goodvibes]

320 CBR or better is all I'll use. Can't really get on with less or VBR in general. I can hear the dif in FLAC also and I've always found FLAC a bit smoothed out compared to the WAV equivalent but quite informative. Yes, I know it's the same bits and if decoded to a wav file, identical. I suspect it's the real time processor load or extra buffering involved that causes it. Not an issue for portable and the 320 size is great for that but pretty noticeable at home. Oh, and I've had other people test me so no, it's not my imagination.