Are 320kbps MP3's worthy of a setup worth $600+?

[Skin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif sometimes there is a song or album that i really want to hear, so i just buy it from amazon or other places in MP3 format - 192, 256, 320. it varies. i then burn it to a CD and play it on my player. i have done this a few times and each time the CD sounded bad - harsh, digital, lacking in dynamics.

Out of curiosity what copy software are you using?

 

[s1rrah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif i can tell the difference between MP3 and wav on my system.

I have to concur with what vcoheda says ...

Even though I have mentioned that it's hard to tell the difference between a well encoded 320kbs MP3 and it's FLAC/WAV source ...

The difference is still there and noticeable ...

But only to those of us who spend about 60 hours a weekend listening to our rigs ...

 

[FallenAngel]

So far I haven't been able to sell a difference between FLAC and 320kbps Lame encoded MP3 with the music I've tried (yes, I ripped to both and found no difference, but no, I didn't spend hours upon hours of time comparing, I don't care enough to do so; if it sounds the same, I use the more convenient one, which happens to be MP3 for most of my stuff with a few FLAC files of the music I really love to get into, Hotel California for example

)

 

[dazzer1975]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif so in my opinion, wav is the only way to go.

hear hear (no pun intended)

Always amazes me when people tell others that they cant hear a difference between 320 mp3 and wav's, the difference to me means that where I can, I use wavs, and I don't have the top gear you do.

I think you struck a salient point with regards to people who have come from strictly listening to cd's and entered the mp3 arena, there is a definite noticeable drop in that full bodied lushness you get with wavs/cd's

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzer1975 /img/forum/go_quote.gif hear hear (no pun intended) Always amazes me when people tell others that they cant hear a difference between 320 mp3 and wav's, the difference to me means that where I can, I use wavs, and I don't have the top gear you do. I think you struck a salient point with regards to people who have come from strictly listening to cd's and entered the mp3 arena, there is a definite noticeable drop in that full bodied lushness you get with wavs/cd's

It also depends on the music you get, in the words of another funny member on the site, if you're listening to Timberland beats, you won't tell the difference between CD and 128kbps MP3s.

 

[vvanrij]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic888 /img/forum/go_quote.gif vvanrij you should have read the Poll more carefully; he actually gave a very helpful and specific answer. I was more concerned with an answer that gave me a relative cut-off point determined by the ratio i stated in the poll question rather than just a yes or no answer.

I read it closely but the question + answers are flawed. You are asking if a 320kbps file is good enough for a 600$ setup, well offcourse the answer is yes. The other answers begin with: a 192 file etc. which is basicly saying, either yes or no to the main question, but thats not included in the answer. If a 192 file is good enough, a 320 will also be etc. Furthermore a 600$ setup can be a really expensive ipod with some recabled ibuds. Just go for the 320kbps files for the peace of mind.

Furthermore to be able to hear the difference between a 320 and wav file, you got a really good setup. Offcourse you can't hear that difference with a ipod and ibuds (not even recabled ones

), but yeah if you got some better audio equipment, you can definetly hear it. Offcourse I also use 320 or lower on my portable players, but @ home I definetly use the original cd's. There is a reason why people spend alot of money on a really good cd-player, to think that your computer can do the same is offcourse just naive, unless cd-players somehow belong today in the snakeoil category

 

[DarKu]

i would respond with a "NO"
But you didn't put it.
If i was you, i deleted all mp3's and started to listen some lossless music (Flac, Ape, WAV)

 

[dazzer1975]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif It also depends on the music you get, in the words of another funny member on the site, if you're listening to Timberland beats, you won't tell the difference between CD and 128kbps MP3s.

lol theres probably some truth in that too

 

[apatN]

A very clear and solid yes is the only answer. 320kb mp3s are good enough though below 320kb mp3s start to sound bad really fast.

 

[Bullseye]

I believe it is good enough, as when you listen to a song you are not comparing it with other file format (if what you want to do is to enjoy it), about that guy who can hear differences between lossless he is just thinking he can...

And between FLAC and WAV there is no AUDIBLE difference if it is well ripped.

Anyways what counts here is what you can hear, not what bats or dogs can hear... I like listening to FLAC, as depending on the music some mp3 320Kbps do not sound as "rich" as the lossless format. However if a CD is well ripped to 320Kbps i here the same sound spectrum

 

[panda]

320mp3 is absolutely good enough for use in an upgraded rig. i have enough faith in the format that i have converted my flac collection to 320mp3 a few years ago.

you're going to get a lot of arguments that mp3 is crap and lossless is the only way. so obviously, this is entirely upto you to decide. it's not difficult to compare, so give it a shot once you have your system together. you can always accumulate more music...

 

[Will2007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif i can tell the difference between MP3 and wav on my system. i generally only listen to CDs. sometimes there is a song or album that i really want to hear, so i just buy it from amazon or other places in MP3 format - 192, 256, 320. it varies. i then burn it to a CD and play it on my player. i have done this a few times and each time the CD sounded bad - harsh, digital, lacking in dynamics.

Please note that you are not comparing apples to apples. What you are doing when downloading an MP3 and then burning to CD is re-encoding with your burning software. That's not allowed in making direct comparisons.

Buy a well recorded CD from Amazon, use a high quality AAC or MP3 encoder and rip the tracks in 320 kbps CBR, and also rip them in WAV files. If you then use the same device and signal chain to listen to the original, uncompressed file (you can't use your CD player, because then you are going to be burning and thus re-encoding the ripped files), then you will not be able to hear the difference between the compressed file at 320 kbps and the uncompressed file in WAV format. That's not a statement about your ears and hearing not being good enough. It's a testament to how good AAC and modern MP3 encoding has gotten.

Don't trash high quality lossy compression if you don't know how to do proper comparisons, because you haven't truly compared them.

Quote:

if you only listen to MP3, you will become acustomed to the compressed sound and i suspect most bit rates will sound very similar if not the same. but if you listen *only* to CDs as i do for a very long time so that that sound becomes the norm, going to MP3 at any rate will sound different and noticeably worse.

Bad assumptions on your part. I grew up listening to LPs, then cassette tapes, then CDs. MP3 came much much later, and my experience with them goes back 4 years, versus 35+ years with LPs.

Quote:

so in my opinion, wav is the only way to go.

Fine for you, but the OP asked about MP3 compression and a decent bit rate. WAV is uncompressed and is really irrelevant to his question.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif the only difference between WAV and MP3 is that the former sounds rich, full bodied and full of detail while the latter sounds brittle, thin and bright. other than that, they are the same.

I have heard the difference between original and some mp3 that I have downloaded from the internet (even some high bitrate ones), but stuff I have made myself, I admit I cant hear the difference in blind ABX test. They sound full bodied and detailed from lowest lows to shimmering highs of cymbals (which are usually damaged in mp3 compression). And I really would like to see what kind of results those couple elitist sounding persons, who posted in this thread, get in such test too.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllEars /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, OK let me restate my comment..Please show me a graph of an Apple Lossless file being played overtop of an uncompressed .WAV file so I can see this exact match between the two.

As is said many times in this thread, there is NO difference. Lossless compression only "ZIPs" the file, nothing more. Thats why they are considerably larger than MP3's too. When you compress any file, be it text or image or EXE file or whatever, nothing is lost in the compression, it is just shrinked together and then extracted when you want to use them. FLAC does this on fly when you play it, thats why it uses more processing power too when played. There is the original WAV/PCM inside it.


read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_compression

 

[toxic888]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1rrah /img/forum/go_quote.gif But only to those of us who spend about 60 hours a weekend listening to our rigs ...

GS1000? awesome...