[Loser777]

I tried listening to some audio clips to see if I could tell the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps audio... the weird thing was was that it was really difficult with my RX700s, they both sounded equally good/bad to me.
However, with my Logitech X-230, the 256kbps clip was noticeably more crisp than the 128kbps one.

Any thoughts? Or is this some placebo effect-type thing.

 

[mypasswordis]

I can tell bit rate differences more easily on headphones than speakers, but I'm sure some of that has to do with the highly revealing and resolving nature of my planar headphones.

 

[lucky]

I'm listening to my RX700. The phones tend to roll off the treble range, though removing the felt helps a bit.

 

[Loser777]

I think it could just be psychological, using strings-only clips is harder to discern bitrate, percussion such as cymbals supposedly makes it easier.
Anyone got any other tests so I can test myself? (I was doing the PC Mag one)

 

[lucky]

mp3 or not - Don't you hear it?

That's another one. The most straightforward way, though, is to take a lossless file, encode it at the bitrates you wish to test, and set up an ABX test via Foobar.

 

[mypasswordis]

Just listen to your music at whatever bit rate. If the lower bit rate mp3s don't bother you/sound worse, then it doesn't matter what bit rate you use. I have no problem with using mp3s but sometimes the lower quality stuff (192kbps and below) really starts to bug me after awhile and only then do I check the files and realize the problem.

 

[vdub]

The world needs to go lossless. Arguing about bitrates is useless because everyone has different ears. Personally, I can hear the difference between 256K and 320K. But lossless is too close to call compared to CD's. Just go with what sounds good for you.

 

[Loser777]

128s bug me a lot in certain genres, but in classical where there's less percussion and sometimes treble, it's less noticeable. That said, I just failed this:
mp3 or not - Don't you hear it?

 

[asmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loser777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 128s bug me a lot in certain genres, but in classical where there's less percussion and sometimes treble, it's less noticeable. That said, I just failed this: mp3 or not - Don't you hear it?

got it right... but it was tough call. the examples given were not prime for an easyly descernible abx. as mentioned and for me as well, its the treble in lower bitrates that give it away.

 

[Brighten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypasswordis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can tell bit rate differences more easily on headphones than speakers, but I'm sure some of that has to do with the highly revealing and resolving nature of my planar headphones.

Nope. My RS-1 always puts my Audio Engine A5 speakers to shame whenever I listen to them after listening to the latter.

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loser777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any thoughts? Or is this some placebo effect-type thing.

The Logitech 2.1 system may sound cleaner because of multiple drivers and bass/subwoofer freqs in a separate box. There may also be effects or settings turned on with the speakers that don't work well with headphones.

My experience has been that headphones reveal much more detail than speakers.

 

[x3sphere]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loser777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 128s bug me a lot in certain genres, but in classical where there's less percussion and sometimes treble, it's less noticeable. That said, I just failed this: mp3 or not - Don't you hear it?

It's not the best comparison, but for me it is really easy to discern the two on the test with my HD-650s. The second clip lacks impact and depth in the latter half.

 

[Adreneline]

I own the RX700 too. It is very easy for me to find the difference between a 192 --> 320 bit rate on my headphones. In fact, more easier than on my speakers (M-Audio AV-40), which are a lot better than those Logitechs.

I find the headphones to be a lot more revealing. So, it may just be you, or the placebo effect.

Of course, going from 320 bit-rate --> FLAC, I can almost hear no difference. Usually things are a bit more balanced, but that could just be my ears playing tricks. However, on one album, I found that the FLAC version was a bit quieter, but that could be the way it was encoded -- not sure how that stuff works.

 

[somestranger26]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adreneline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course, going from 320 bit-rate --> FLAC, I can almost hear no difference. Usually things are a bit more balanced, but that could just be my ears playing tricks. However, on one album, I found that the FLAC version was a bit quieter, but that could be the way it was encoded -- not sure how that stuff works.

Oftentimes a FLAC rip will be targeted at a playback volume of ~89dB and Replay Gain is added. So that's probably why the FLAC was quieter.

 

[Baird GoW]

It was really easy for me to tell which was 320 with my ultrasone HFI-780.
Most noticeable part was when he first starts on his high note (only way i can explain it) IMO it sounded like it cracked and then echoed his voice for a split second.