1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by clincher09, Sep 3, 2008.
First
 
Back
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
22 23 24 25
Next
 
Last
  1. fuzzy1969
    anyone know how lossy compression deals with harmonics?
     
  2. yepimonfire


    Quote:
    no, most likely you will not hear a difference, but i do 320 anyways because i feel better about it [​IMG] assuming you are using a recent algorithm, mp3 becomes transparent at 160kbps, wma is a slightly better codec then mp3 but only good at higher bitrates because the artifacts screw with the low end a lot, i personally do not like wma because of this. AAC is the best codec when it comes to transparency, it is very difficult to tell the difference between 128kbps AAC and the CD, i use AAC at 320kbps when ripping to lossless. when it come to which codecs reach transparency at lower bitrates first it goes in this order from my own experience, MP3, WMA, OGG, then AAC.
     
     
  3. ramicio
    The difference between 192 and 320 in MP3 is very audible.  With AAC probably not.  I have my whole FLAC library compressed to 192 AAC for my iPhone.  It sounds fine to me.  I used to use 192 for MP3 and it sounded horrible.
     
  4. Ham Sandwich
    Quote:


    Have you done ABX tests to verify?  192 kbps MP3 sounded horrible?  The difference was very audible?
     
    We are in Sound Science and not the phoolery part of head-fi.  We're easy going here, but if you'd have said the same over at HydrogenAudio you'd be instantly banned due to about 8 different TOS violations just with that one post.  [​IMG]
     
    I kid obviously, but where's the evidence to back up such statements?  What are you listening with?  Which MP3 codec?  How are you hearing such obvious differences?  Do you spend all of your time listening to killer samples meant to trip up lossy codecs rather than listening to real music?
     
  5. ramicio
     
    This was years ago with the Frauenhofer MP3 codec.  I don't need ABX tests to tell me that there are compression artifacts.  I don't buy into ABX testing and yes I have had problems over at HA, a site I don't care for.  I didn't just listen for bad samples, it was in all my music and I could not stand it.  I like hearing all parts of music, and lossy codecs tend to kill the high frequencies, which is mathematically proven.  I was even disgusted by 320 kbps MP3.  Next time I backed up everything I went to 192 kbps AAC which was better, but I could still tell not all the information was there, even with inexpensive equipment.  The last, and current, time I did everything I just kept it FLAC.  16,000 songs (almost 1,700 are 24/96 and 24/192) still leaves me over 150 GB of free space on a 750 GB drive, a luxury I didn't have in the past.  Pretty much everything I got that was a vinyl rip I have deleted from the HD directory I have and have just gone with Redbook rips.  Anything left in the HD part of my collection is DVD-Audio.  I had convinced myself that vinyl was better but I had just EQ'd the hell out of my sound card so Redbook stuff would clip, and quiet vinyl stuff would tend not to.  I use lossy for my phone because I don't ever listen to stuff loud, like at home, and it's always in a more noisy place, so artifacts won't be as audible as just sitting down, relaxed, and listening with a lot of focus.


     
  6. fuzzy1969
    Theres a newer fraunhofer encoder 'IIS' a lot of artists i listen to are using it.
     
  7. Confispect


    Quote:


    Interesting...
     
  8. ramicio
    For me lossy codecs ruin the sounds of cymbals/hi-hats in rock music and blend and mush them together.  For real acoustic instruments, that is.  Digitally-made ones such as those in pop, electronic, and rap don't seem to suffer as much. I doubt a digital cymbal has as broad as spectrum as a real acoustic cymbal.
     
  9. Confispect


    Quote:


    So what codec/bit would suggest....?
     
  10. ramicio
    For lossy or what?
     
  11. Confispect


    Quote:


    Period. Your preference.
     
  12. Satellite_6


    Quote:

    Try LAME!
     
  13. MCC
    I've moved on to AAC 300k for my collection when space is a constraint (laptop), as I've noticed lack of "space" with LAME MP3s. I have yet to pass an ABX between Nero AAC 300k and FLAC but I can tell 256k LAME MP3 from FLAC under ABX given the right music.
     
    My main collection is currently 80.1% FLAC.
     
  14. ramicio
    My preference would be lossless.  It's insane to use a lossy library for PC playback with all of the storage space so cheap anymore.  I don't see how LAME is going to be any better than the creators of MP3.  To me, to change the MP3 algorithm is straying from the standard that was created.  Anyway lossy is inferior.
     
  15. Satellite_6
    The standard that was created is ancient. . . LAME is definitely superior to FHG. Also, AAC is not significantly better or worse than mp3 according to blind listening tests, and my ears. :-/
     
    My preference is also lossless and I have a lossless copy of ALL the music I care about, I only use lossy for DAPs: 320kbps mp3's encoded with LAME + mp3gain. . . 
     
First
 
Back
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
22 23 24 25
Next
 
Last

Share This Page