[cs1323]

I have a question and I'm not sure at all where to ask it. So, here I go.

My question(s) is/are:
Are 320kbps MP3 files ranked among the best formats to use?

The format "MP3" has been around for awhile, but why is it still used? Is it still used because so many people have converted to this format?

And especially if it's in 320kbps, does this mean it can play side by side with a FLAC or WAV file? With 320kbps, is there even a compression.. but yet it sounds good?

 

[deadlierchair]

Mp3 is popular right now because it has been popular for a while (hah, a weird reasoning). When Napster existed people started to realize what digital music was/could be and this music trading happened in the mp3 format, which sounded pretty good, was small in size, and etc. After this, players started to support mp3 and it just sort of evolved into the standard.

I don't think 320 kbps mp3s are a great idea myself. I would look into using VBR for my mp3s. At a 192 or 256 VBR you have a varying bit rate that stores a lot of data for complicated parts of songs and less data for less complex portions. You can save space and still have good quality. Still, mp3s are lossy, unlike FLAC or Wav. Flac and wav are lossless in that the files are exactly the same as the audio cd they come from. So you aren't losing anything due to compression. People will argue about how good 320 kbps mp3s sound vs. FLAC and you'll have to decide that for yourself. My personal choice is FLAC on my PC with 192 kbps mp3s for my iPod.

 

[richard]

mp3 was the first popular compressed format, so people got used to it and manufacturers built players to play it, making it more popular, ...

wav and flac (or any other lossless format) should sound exactly the same. mp3 in theory will sound worse, even 320k mp3, although much lower bitrates are likely transparent, that is, indistinguishable from the source.

Get foobar2000 and run an ABX test using replaygain (which matches sound levels). http://www.foobar2000.org/ ABX is a way of running a blind test - you compare two encodings of a song but you don't know which sample is which.

Most people can't tell the difference between 160k (or 128k vbr) from the original in a blind test. Almost everyone can hear that flac is better than 192k if they know which is which.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadlierchair Still, mp3s are lossless, unlike FLAC or Wav. Flac and wav are lossless in that the files are exactly the same as the audio cd they come from.

I think you mean 'Still MP3s are lossy'.

cs1323, nearly any file except PCM/WAV/AIFF is compressed (actually they may too compared to source). But as deadlierchair mentioned there's lossless and lossy compression. The trick is your ears and equipment (let along recording quality) may not be up to the difference. LAME MP3 or AAC or Ogg Vorbis at high bitrates can be very close to lossless/uncompressed. MP3s can be played on nearly any portable, many car stereos, DVD players, etc. so its still the default. Depending if you don't care about compatibility and the bitrate you're aiming for there may be better options (namely AAC or Ogg Vorbis). If that gain is audible to you is another question.

 

[deadlierchair]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx I think you mean 'Still MP3s are lossy'.

Hah, yep you're right. Changed.

Yeah I think for most general usage good VBR mp3s are excellent because they work on an increasing number of appliances and the average person uses them so the industry is behind the format. On an average set of speakers of simple headphones you probably won't gain much by moving to FLAC beyond good mp3s. But it really does depend on your setup, so experiment a litte!

 

[DRSpeed85]

For the majority of people content with ipod's earbuds, sound quality between different bitrates wont be noticable all that much. Overall there isnt enough to demand a different kind of file format no matter how supeior or efficient. Sony tried that and failed miserably.

But for us with better gear sensitive to sound quality, it will matter alot whether it is WAV, or 320kbps MP3.

 

[socrates63]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRSpeed85 For the majority of people content with ipod's earbuds, sound quality between different bitrates wont be noticable all that much. Overall there isnt enough to demand a different kind of file format no matter how supeior or efficient. Sony tried that and failed miserably. But for us with better gear sensitive to sound quality, it will matter alot whether it is WAV, or 320kbps MP3.

I agree. It depends heavily on your gear. If you're simply listening out of the headphone jack, you probably won't gain much over max quality MP3s.

 

[Jasper994]

What is your intention here?

If all you are doing is listening then a great number of people feel that high bitrate lossy formats like MP3 and others mentioned above are transparent. Most people even those with decent gear will not be able to tell one from the other in a blind test. Of course, if you, like many of us feel better using a lossless compression more power to you...

On the other hand, if your intention is to actually archive/backup your music collection, go lossless. For that matter, hard drive space is so cheap these days that there really isn't any reason to choose a lossy format for storage on your main PC. The only reason to use lossy is for your DAP. Even there, you might ask yourself, how many albums do I need to carry with me everywhere I go? A 30GB DAP will hold approximately 60-75 albums in a lossless compression like Apple Lossless or FLAC. Using 320k MP3 you'll get around 210-250 albums.

 

[LFF]

I think Jasper994 is right.

Most people can not tell the difference when listening to 320 MP3 v. WAV.

I encode all my CD's at 320 MP3 and I would say that 320VBR is just as good too. However, if you are looking to encode for archiving purposes - lossless is the way to go if you have the space.

If you can take care of your CD's then 320 MP3 is the way to go IMHO.

 

[richard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRSpeed85 For the majority of people content with ipod's earbuds, sound quality between different bitrates wont be noticable all that much. Overall there isnt enough to demand a different kind of file format no matter how supeior or efficient. Sony tried that and failed miserably. But for us with better gear sensitive to sound quality, it will matter alot whether it is WAV, or 320kbps MP3.

You'd be surprised how few people can tell the difference in a blind test on a computer, even using a good soundcard and high end headphones.

 

[philodox]

For a portable setup I see no reason to use anything higher than LAME APS [192vbr]... unless you are getting into portable DAC/AMP/custom IEM territory.

 

[EdipisReks]

i use 224 AAC VBR or Lame Alt Standard VBR with my portable rig (more AAC nowadays). 320 MP3 is pretty much completely transparent to my ears, though soundstaging is sometimes a little fuzzy. this is just a function of the encoder, and some encoders do a beter job than others. 320 AAC, made with the new VBR encoder in iTunes, is completely transparent to me, with my current gear and the current state of my ears. the previous state of the encoder had some soundstage fuzziness to my ear, but this has been fixed.

 

[wanderman]

lame 3.97b2 v1 vbr new rips. Transparent. I also rip all my cd's lossless and transcode for portables or burn mp3 cd's for the bookshelf thing I have. lame mp3 is the best way to rip if you want gapless mp3 playback. Assuming your player can support gapless. If you don't plan on transcoding. I would just go ahead and rip your cd's to lame and throw the lot of them in a box. If one is not using lossless for archiving it is pretty pointless because 99% human beings can't tell the difference. THe people at headfi that can tell a difference are probably aliens

-wander

 

[Riordan]

one thing not to be missed in this discussion is the amount of battery use - there's one reason why (lame) mp3 is arguably still a better option for mobile daps than newer codecs like ogg, let alone lossless formats, even if you have the space.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riordan one thing not to be missed in this discussion is the amount of battery use - there's one reason why (lame) mp3 is arguably still a better option for mobile daps than newer codecs like ogg, let alone lossless formats, even if you have the space.

Yup, in fact for me file size itself isn't even an issue on my 5G 60GB iPod. I only have about 40 or 50 albums loaded or to-be loaded, so even with a generous amount of ALAC content (and throw in a few movies), I still have space to spare.

I have ample space to actually keep two rips of many CDs - a lame API version, and an ALAC version. If I know I'll be in a position to charge every day I listen mostly ALAC files. If on the road, battery life takes precedence and I might switch to 320 Kbps mp3 files.

BTW, synching nano is a breeze too - just sync with a SmartList which tells nano not to transfer any albums with ALAC in the title. I append the acronym 'ALAC' to all my ALAC encoded albums so nano can tell the difference. Onto 5G iPod I simply load it all.