[astro]

I'm lost.. I don't understand what everyone means when they say 128kbps sounds like garbage.

I'm personally a detail whore with my Etymotic ER4S/LDM+ amp setup connected to a Chaintech AV710/foobar/kernel streaming. There's nothing I enjoy more than to listen to a good recording and feel the soundstage, the seperation, and imagine I was there.

I could easily hear quality differences agmonst various recordings, or even between different sources. Ex: My Audigy2 sounds noticeably worse.

But after loading up dozens of songs, including many audiophile recordings, I could never pass them.

Any ideas why?

Are my ears just untrained?
Or maybe my hearing isn't that good. When I went to get a hearing test, I was able to hear down to 0dB, but when I did a frequency test, I couldn't hear past 16KHz. I'm guessing this is the main contributing factor.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or maybe my hearing isn't that good. When I went to get a hearing test, I was able to hear down to 0dB, but when I did a frequency test, I couldn't hear past 16KHz. I'm guessing this is the main contributing factor.

It isn't about frequency here, it is about artifacts in the final lossey files that are produced by the compression. Lossey files of 256bit or above have very small amounts of artifacts but if you learn what to listen for even then you can start to pick out the lossey format compared with a non-lossey format such as FLAC on a good day. On a portable system the higher end compressed files are good enough. I just don't want to hear the distorted artifact laden compressed files at 196 and below on my equipment. Some days my hearing is just not good enough to tell the difference with the higher level compressed formats. BTW, my hearing tops out between 14 and 15 kHz.

This is something where you mileage will definitely vary in my opinion.

128 is not transparent for me in other words.

 

[nickknutson]

Since I've listen to Lossless for the last 5 months, I can't listen to 128kps anymore, it sounds dreadful.

 

[astro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif It isn't about frequency here, it is about artifacts in the final lossey files that are produced by the compression. Lossey files of 256bit or above have very small amounts of artifacts but if you learn what to listen for even then you can start to pick out the lossey format compared with a non-lossey format such as FLAC on a good day. On a portable system the higher end compressed files are good enough. I just don't want to hear the distorted artifact laden compressed files at 196 and below on my equipment. Some days my hearing is just not good enough to tell the difference with the higher level compressed formats. BTW, my hearing tops out between 14 and 15 kHz. This is something where you mileage will definitely vary in my opinion. 128 is not transparent for me in other words.

I don't hear the artifacts at all though at 128kbs. I could hear them pretty easily at 96kbps, but they're gone by 128kbps.
I could easily hear artifacts in most mediocre recordings. But a high quality recording at 128kbps still sound as live as it does on higher bitrates.

 

[RedLeader]

Well really, if 128kb/s is good enough for you, all the better! Means you can stuff more songs onto a dap! Wish it was good enough for me, that'd be awesome.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't hear the artifacts at all though at 128kbs. I could hear them pretty easily at 96kbps, but they're gone by 128kbps. I could easily hear artifacts in most mediocre recordings. But a high quality recording at 128kbps still sound as live as it does on higher bitrates.

The lowest level where I thought transparency starts to occur at all was 196 and the difference in size from there to 256 is not enough for me to go with 196. That is my experience. I use FLAC when size is not important to me. I use 320 VBR when it is which averages around 230. I agree if 128 is good enough then all the better. Don't worry about it. Transparency levels will be different for different people.

 

[mastercheif]

128 is definatly not transperant. Well, for me at least. I can A/B/X at ~90% untill 256 vbr, so I just go lossless whenever I can.

 

[astro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif The lowest level where I thought transparency starts to occur at all was 196 and the difference in size from there to 256 is not enough for me to go with 196. That is my experience. I use FLAC when size is not important to me. I use 320 VBR when it is which averages around 230. I agree if 128 is good enough then all the better. Don't worry about it. Transparency levels will be different for different people.

Well it's a bit unnerving when most people can hear what you can't hear. It kinda makes you wonder what else you're missing out on.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well it's a bit unnerving when most people can hear what you can't hear. It kinda makes you wonder what else you're missing out on.

Enjoying the music is the end game. If you are doing that then you are achieving at least what anyone with a 100 grand has invested in their equipment and maybe more if they can never be satisfied. If so, then "be happy", isn't that a song somewhere?

http://www.superlaugh.com/1/behappy.htm

 

[MCC]

I ABX'ed 30 128k MP3s against FLAC w/ 100% accuracy some time ago. 128k, to me, is just a shell of what's really in the music. I always use Lame 320k MP3s (q0) or FLAC where possible.

 

[goldenratiophi]

I can ABX, but 128 doesn't really sound terrible IMO.

 

[_Rand_]

I actually have a 64kbps mp3 and a 256kbps mp3 of the same song on hand.

The difference is amazing... entire instruments are practically missing, cymbals for example are turned into dull thuds. Its pretty funny really

.

 

[sschell]

While I haven't abx-ed the two, I'm relatively sure I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 160-180kbps. It's mainly the subtle distortion, and "energy" that I notice lacking.

 

[Redo]

128kbps is about the minimum where it becomes fairly easy to ABX the two and hear the differences. 160kbps-192kbps and beyond and it's damned hard to hear any differences.


That's not to say 128kbps sounds bad at all, it's just a bit easier to hear the differences. This is also with 3.97 LAME, other codecs and formats may be much much different.

 

[Xakepa]

Do NOT resample in FB, probably you messed it up smhow there. 128 MP3 is not transparent even with a low-fi gear, try smth with many instruments like Buena Vista Social Club CD.

From 192 and up though your ABX might fail - regardless of the gear. I've tried once with a top-of-the-world gear (Krell->Single Power amp->HE90), and wasn't able to tell Lame 3.97 "-V0 -q0 --lowpass 19.7 -b128" from FLAC.