is mp3 320kbps good enough for sennheiser hd 598?

[takeshibeat]

what is the diference beetween mp3 320kbps cbr and mp3 320kbps vbr
and what the diference beetween mp3 320kbps cbr and V0 ,V2
what is V0 or V2  and where can i convert my music files to that
and please write if its the same like mp3 320kbps cbr so that i dont need to change
anything about my way of converting i did till now

 

[RexAeterna]

CBR(consent bit rate)

VBR(variable bit rate)

 

[swbf2cheater]

yes, 320 is just fine as the HD 598 doesnt boast supreme clarity that is only fueled by lossless.  Most of my flac files dont sound audibly different than 320kbps files.  Thankfully the hd598 is in that realm of not being so sensitive and clear that it requires these lossless files or else any other birate sounds like crap.  It is good enough to enjoy lower quality files without sounding god awful, but also not good enough to pick up on the differences a much more clear set will produce in a lower quality tracks.
 
Best of both worlds if you ask me  HD 598 for the win

 

[jasonb]

320kbps is just fine for most headphones. I use 320kbps mp3's almost exclusively no matter what I am listening to my music on.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[jjinh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by takeshibeat /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
if the music in 320kbps(via usb) would be good enough for the sennheiser hd 598 headphones

 
yes, now go and enjoy your music
 
 

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

lossless is over-rated bud. as long s the original mastering is good you won't hear the hint of difference. modern compressors got so damn good it'll be hard to tell going from even some 128kb/s to complete lossless 24-bit WAV.

there is no to non difference in 24-bit vs. 16-bit either. all 24-bit might add is little extra dynamic range but that extra dynamic range usually ends up as distortion.

Eugh it annoys me when people say things like this... 128kbps MP3 are a LOT different in terms of quality to a FLAC...
 
Yes 320kbps is much closer to FLAC quality but saying 128kbps is similar is very misleading as to a trained ear there is a very significant quality difference between a heavily compressed 128kb mp3 and a lossless recording.
 
 

 

[RexAeterna]

Eugh it annoys me when people say things like this... 128kbps MP3 are a LOT different in terms of quality to a FLAC...
 
Yes 320kbps is much closer to FLAC quality but saying 128kbps is similar is very misleading as to a trained ear there is a very significant quality difference between a heavily compressed 128kb mp3 and a lossless recording.
 
 

i have heard 128kb/s tracks sound as good as fully uncompress wav or even APE(which has better compression compared to FLAC) if the recording was properly mastered in the first place. i don't see how this bothers you since it's my opinion. also saying someone has a more trained ears is debatable as well cause most of time it's usually a placebo effect but that's another subject.

 

[nicholars]

It bothers me because it is incorrect....
 
Your opinion is not relevant because it is not a subjective thing... 128kb is SIGNIFICANTLY worse and HEAVILY compressed... You shouldnt go recommending people to use 128kb Mp3 because it is missleading.
 
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about eg. "it has better compression then FLAC" "lossless is over-rated" "it'll be hard to tell going from even some 128kb/s to complete lossless 24-bit WAV"
 
TBH those statements are just missleading and verging on ridiculous so maybe you should not give people missleading advice.
 
Personally if I am listening to a playlist of 320kbps and FLAC files then a 128kbps file or even 192kbps I can notice within 10 seconds of stasrting the song that it is lower bitrate... 128kbps is horrible quality tbh. 192kbps is not great, 320 is fine and Flac is better again, although 320kbps and Flac I can confuse one for the other sometimes a 128kbps or 192kbps is blatantly worse quality and it is evident straight away to me.

 

[detoxguy]

pointless

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Yes, 320kbps mp3 is good. Heck you probably wouldn't notice a difference between it and flac even in a blind test.

 

[nicholars]

I am relaxed thanks...
 
i just dont think that saying 128kbps is indistinguishable from 24 bit WAV is a very good bit of advice....
 
The OP might go and rip all his stuff to 128kbps thinking it is fine when actually it is blatantly worse quality....
 
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I am relaxed thanks...
 
i just dont think that saying 128kbps is indistinguishable from 24 bit WAV is a very good bit of advice....
 
The OP might go and rip all his stuff to 128kbps thinking it is fine when actually it is blatantly worse quality....

Worse quality yes. Noticeable without thorough listening? no. I just don't hear a big enough difference to justify the size increase. Then again i am less picky.

 

[Satellite_6]

128 is pretty fail. 
 
Use high bit rate lossy or lossless (not much difference there - although there is one). 

 

[nicholars]

 
Quote:

Worse quality yes. Noticeable without thorough listening? no. I just don't hear a big enough difference to justify the size increase. Then again i am less picky.

I honestly dont see how people can think that.... To my ears 128kbps is noticable within seconds as being much worse quality and I find it horrible to listen to....
 
It doesnt even require thorough listening or any effort to notice it.... 128kbps just immediately sounds a lot worse am not sure why you are even on a forum which is about audio quality if you cant notice that a 128kbps mp3 sounds horrible lol.
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

128 is pretty fail. 
 
Use high bit rate lossy or lossless (not much difference there - although there is one). 

I would like to see every head fier look at things realistically. Yes there is a difference but it is small. Is the small difference worth the 3x space taken up for 320kbps vs 128? No. And there is no difference between flac and 320kbps unless you have super human hearing. Even then the highest pitched instruments in music usually go no higher then 12khz. So in theory you could cut off until 13khz and still have a very listenable file. I have tried many times to distinguish a difference between the various bit rates files and the only one i heard a difference with was with 128 vs 320. Even then the only way you will notice is if you stop what your doing and listen with no distractions. The difference isn't worth it.