[TobaccoRoad]

Quote:

 


Im sorry but it really is not "impossible to tell" at all.... it is really quite obvious! Jeez a 128kb mp3 is like <10% of the original size of the recording and you think that has ZERO % effect on sound quality?!
 

I never said the difference between 320 and 128 was impossible to tell. In fact the difference is very noticeable if you compare them side by side. But if you were to blindly hear a song for the first time you will have a hard time guessing the bitrate because you don't know if the music is well recorded to begin with. There are a lot of recordings which sound bad even if they are converted to 320. Original recordings are much more important than bitrates.
 
 

 

[Byakushiki]

Even I'll admit, part of my library is still in 128kbps. It sounds fine, and I really don't feel like replacing it any time soon. There are a couple tracks that suffer due to the compression, which is obvious through the pioneers and my laptop. But otherwise, they're of more than tolerable quality, surprisingly. Most of YouTube seems to be 128kbps, I think you might be able to find a handful of songs in higher than that. Ran one through a converter (English dub version of the song, plus I have the CD anyways), and the quality wasn't too degraded. It's actually quite hard to discern any differences. Also did that for one of the earlier songs, Ash Like Snow, got it out in 256kbps. I can hardly tell a difference from the 320kbps, if any. Otherwise, calm it down guys. Nicholars, what are you, 13? Everyone's hearing is different, I might not be able to pick out details that you can. There might be songs where that is applied in opposite ways as well. Relax.
The differences can be subtle sometimes between different encodings and bitrates. Sometimes, you have differences that can only be discerned through capable programs that are capable of telling differences us humans can't.
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

No but that is the thing... I am not dictating my beliefs to others either... I am merely stating FACT vs SUBJECTIVE opinion.
 
Ok so maybe YOU cannot notice a difference but to me and a lot of other people there is an obvious difference.
 
Do you really think that the encoding is SO GOOD that it can remove 90% of the original recording with ZERO impact on sound quality?
 
The difference in quality to me is immediatly apparent with 128kbps and I honestly cannot believe people say there is "no difference" or "have you a/b tested" and similar comments when the 128kbps mp3 is so obviously worse quality!
 
I agree that the original recording quality is the most important but any given recording at 128kbps vs flac will sound obviously different tbh.

 
About 80% of a recoding in digital format is used up wasted space. The difference between 128kbps vs 320kbps is noticeable it's just not apparent unless i listen for it.

 

[nikp]

Quote:

Even I'll admit, part of my library is still in 128kbps. It sounds fine, and I really don't feel like replacing it any time soon. There are a couple tracks that suffer due to the compression, which is obvious through the pioneers and my laptop. But otherwise, they're of more than tolerable quality, surprisingly. Most of YouTube seems to be 128kbps, I think you might be able to find a handful of songs in higher than that. Ran one through a converter (English dub version of the song, plus I have the CD anyways), and the quality wasn't too degraded. It's actually quite hard to discern any differences. Also did that for one of the earlier songs, Ash Like Snow, got it out in 256kbps. I can hardly tell a difference from the 320kbps, if any. Otherwise, calm it down guys. Nicholars, what are you, 13? Everyone's hearing is different, I might not be able to pick out details that you can. There might be songs where that is applied in opposite ways as well. Relax.
The differences can be subtle sometimes between different encodings and bitrates. Sometimes, you have differences that can only be discerned through capable programs that are capable of telling differences us humans can't.
 

Imho, that is really unnecessary. We all should have decent respect towards everyone.
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Guys i thought i should share this
 
Click for full size.
The top is 128kbps
The bottom is 320kbps
Red indicates clipping
 

 
It appears to me to not be much different.
 
 
 

 

[nikp]

In my iTunes library, I have some really good 128kbps ones but I also have some 128kbps songs that is just awful to hear. Perhaps the problem is in the encoders?

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

In my iTunes library, I have some really good 128kbps ones but I also have some 128kbps songs that is just awful to hear. Perhaps the problem is in the encoders?

I think the issue is definitely with the encoders. If you use a bad encoder it won't matter what bit rate is used.

 

[RexAeterna]

No but that is the thing... I am not dictating my beliefs to others either... I am merely stating FACT vs SUBJECTIVE opinion.
 
Ok so maybe YOU cannot notice a difference but to me and a lot of other people there is an obvious difference.
 
Do you really think that the encoding is SO GOOD that it can remove 90% of the original recording with ZERO impact on sound quality?
 
The difference in quality to me is immediatly apparent with 128kbps and I honestly cannot believe people say there is "no difference" or "have you a/b tested" and similar comments when the 128kbps mp3 is so obviously worse quality!
 
I agree that the original recording quality is the most important but any given recording at 128kbps vs flac will sound obviously different tbh.

i can tell if it's highly compress or has compression artifacts as well. there is way to tell how bad compression affects the original wave format by hearing it. i was just mentioning some compressors are so good if properly done and of depending on original source on how well it's mastered most people won't hear the differences most likely. that's why there is some tracks that have noticeable difference from 320kb/s to flac or wav and other tracks don't cause it most likely comes down to the original mastering. i save all music stuff myself in uncompressed wav but i have heard tracks in 128kb/s that sounds amazing and clean as well.

i know people have different experiences with what they hear and i respect that. just personally from what i hear there can be some amazing 128kb/s files and not so great sounding uncompressed wav files.

 

[koolkat]

Quote:

In my iTunes library, I have some really good 128kbps ones but I also have some 128kbps songs that is just awful to hear. Perhaps the problem is in the encoders?

Sometimes the track you download from the internet via less than legal channels are poorly ripped/recorded. I recall listening to Good Charlotte's Where Would We Be Now a few years back on my friend's handphone. At one point in the song, I heard the "ding" sound that plays when an error pops up in Windows XP. lol. 
 
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Sometimes the track you download from the internet via less than legal channels are poorly ripped/recorded. I recall listening to Good Charlotte's Where Would We Be Now a few years back on my friend's handphone. At one point in the song, I heard the "ding" sound that plays when an error pops up in Windows XP. lol. 
 
 

I haven't experienced that. Although my 19000 songs are in varied bit rates running from 128 all the way up to 320.
 
 

 

[nicholars]

No I am 27 and I am not going to make any more posts regarding this...
 
Clearly you do not have very good hearing and are incapable of noticing obvious degradation of quality but that is a not a reason to accuse me of being immature or something just because you are recommending people use 128kbps mp3 because you cant hear properly.
 
I cant be bothered to discuss this further but there is CLEARLY a difference with 128kbps mp3 and please dont call me a 13 year old because you cant hear properly.
 
Whey lets all get rid of cd quality or even mp3 320kbps and burn everything in 128kbps because the quality is basically the same :/

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

No I am 27 and I am not going to make any more posts regarding this...
 
Clearly you do not have very good hearing and are incapable of noticing obvious degradation of quality but that is a not a reason to accuse me of being immature or something just because you are recommending people use 128kbps mp3 because you cant hear properly.
 
I cant be bothered to discuss this further but there is CLEARLY a difference with 128kbps mp3 and please dont call me a 13 year old because you cant hear properly.
 
Whey lets all get rid of cd quality or even mp3 320kbps and burn everything in 128kbps because the quality is basically the same :/

If your not 13 why are you acting aggressive and defensive. I never stated the op should rip everything in 128kbps i stated i notice little difference. My hearing is fine. I got a hearing test and my hearing came out really good. Also i can hear up to 19khz. If there was a difference i would notice it. I do notice it but like i said i have to be paying attention. How many people actually listen to music and do nothing else? Most people are doing something like Internet browsing or exercising while they play music. Your acting to defensive for no reason.

 

[nicholars]

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.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Ok then fine I dint care tbh...
 
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.

Seriously why are you being so defensive? I never stated that.

 

[estreeter]

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.