[Brat_Boy]

Some of my 128k recordings sound fine while others suck. But what I have noticed in some songs that I've needed to rip multiple times and done it in different bitrates, I can notice the difference between 128 and 192. 128 tends to lack the sharpness in upper notes and I can sometimes detect a slight hiss in the background - although sometimes that's inaudible from distortion (I listen to rock, metal, reggae, and indie mostly).

Edit: And except for the SR-80 I have on my head right now, the gear I'm with is very low-fi (done a lot of listening this weekend). The sound is going through my $40 desktop speaker jack, using a Realtek integrated sound chip as a source. Yeah, ouch.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since I've listen to Lossless for the last 5 months, I can't listen to 128kps anymore, it sounds dreadful.

ive heard rubbish 128 and very good 128. if you had them back to back with good quality and lossless, i would guess though that without looking you would be hard pressed to discover which was which.

there is rarely anything truly scientific discussed here about encoders, merely that one is better and that, 'oh yah, 128 is rubbish' sort of talk.

i know that the talk about hydrogenaudio is that they haven't good equipment do decifer the diff, but that is just adding smoke to an already water-logged fire. true double blind abxing and shuffle playing on the same player with same volume and without any sort of indication of which song is which will almost always result in 50-50 guess of which is lossless and which is recorded in the highest quality lame vbr at or above 128.

 

[]|[ GorE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif ive heard rubbish 128 and very good 128. if you had them back to back with good quality and lossless, i would guess though that without looking you would be hard pressed to discover which was which. there is rarely anything truly scientific discussed here about encoders, merely that one is better and that, 'oh yah, 128 is rubbish' sort of talk. i know that the talk about hydrogenaudio is that they haven't good equipment do decifer the diff, but that is just adding smoke to an already water-logged fire. true double blind abxing and shuffle playing on the same player with same volume and without any sort of indication of which song is which will almost always result in 50-50 guess of which is lossless and which is recorded in the highest quality lame vbr at or above 128.

Hear,hear !

I do find 128Kbps (Lame 3.90 + ) lacking in some areas ,esp. the treble sounds wheezy.However Lame V4 or V3 is as high quality I need.

 

[Rempert]

I'm not very good at picking out artifacts, but at 128 kb/s mp3 I can definitely do it. Of course, some songs are more transparent than others.

 

[EnOYiN]

Once again: http://ff123.net/index.html

There is a lot of information about artifacts and even some very easy ABXable samples. This way you can learn what artifacts are.

 

[Coltrane]

http://duxlist.com:81/


About 7 song samples, in AAC 128 and FLAC. Can you tell the difference?

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://duxlist.com:81/ About 7 song samples, in AAC 128 and FLAC. Can you tell the difference?

I bet I can. I am not going to try right now because I haven't got the time to do so. ( I have uploaded ABX results of me ABXing lossless vs v0 (3.97). So I am just assuming I can.) You can cherry pick these samples though. There are samples which are enormously hard to ABX and still get a good result. Others are pretty easy.

Most likely they cherry picked some harder ones. It should still be audible if it's only 128kbps though.

 

[Happy Camper]

I really notice it using vbr where the signal gets quiet. The music sounds fine, the quiet background is full of weird noises. Sounds like listening thru a tube.

 

[DSlayerZX]

well. it all depend on the player, way of encoding code, and song you have.

For me, if it is solo instrument or anything with our back ground sounds. it is hard to tell the difference.

But then... if I am listening with music that is more hmm.. complex? Then is pretty easy to distinguish between them. Because with lower bit rate, when there is an sudden change of sound presentation, there tend be some weird cracking noise occur. But is not absolute. I have heard 320 sounded worse than 192. and 192 sounded worse than 128. Anything below that, I can't stand.

But anyway, if you are concerning about hard driver space. Then I guess you can got for 256kps. Personally, I think 256 is really good enough for the normal, average listening with well.. MP3 players. Since the mp3 player it self is not great of a sound out put device either.

As for PC. Go for flac everything XD so you don't have to worry about the loss of some minor detail. Now days, you can get a 320 GB hard drive for around 100 buck. Why not?