MP3 bitrate 192kbps to 320 kbps

[Crow-]

Hi,

Is there much difference on MP3 at 192kbps to 320kbps?

All my Mp3 is at 192kbps, because the files are smaller and I can put more on my Zen Mp3 Player. One day i've done a comparison between 192 and 320, and i didn't noted any difference.

I've read somewhere that our ears can't distinguish differences between some bit rates, so they seem to sound the same thing.

I always used onboard sound and cheap headphones, but now i'm going to buy a good sound card for my PC and good headphones. Will I get better sound quality with higher mp3 bit rate?

Wich one do you use? 192, 256, 320, other?

Thanks.

PS: sorry for my english

 

[tot]

You should test yourself with your equipment where the limit is.

I use vorbis at -q8 on my DAP based on my own listening test (I could no longer tell the difference between -q7 and -q8 even though I knew which was which, -q7 would be sufficient but I wanted to be on the safe side.)

I rip everything to flac since that is most time consuming part of the whole process and I can re-encode to anything.

 

[fraseyboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crow- /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi, Is there much difference on MP3 at 192kbps to 320kbps? All my Mp3 is at 192kbps, because the files are smaller and I can put more on my Zen Mp3 Player. One day i've done a comparison between 192 and 320, and i didn't noted any difference. I've read somewhere that our ears can't distinguish differences between some bit rates, so they seem to sound the same thing. I always used onboard sound and cheap headphones, but now i'm going to buy a good sound card for my PC and good headphones. Will I get better sound quality with higher mp3 bit rate? Wich one do you use? 192, 256, 320, other? Thanks. PS: sorry for my english

If your using onboard sound a cheap headphones, then you wouldnt notice a difference between 192 and 320.

Upgrade your sound card and headphones, then perhaps get an amp. THEN you might notice a difference.

Theres another format called FLAC which is smaller sized than the standard WAV on a CD, but it's Lossless so it doesn't loose any qaulity like MP3 does.
This would be better than even 320kb mp3.

 

[ken36]

The difference is in the intangibles. It's the feeling, Immeasurable. IMO.
Go lossless, it's the only smart choice

 

[ThomasJB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken36 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference is in the intangibles. It's the feeling, Immeasurable. IMO. Go lossless, it's the only smart choice

I feel the same way. When I listen to lower-bitrate mp3s, I'm always thinking, would this sound better if it were lossless? this can detract from the overall experience, so if you've got the space, FLAC is the best choice.

 

[omegaman]

You will get better sound with a higher bitrate. If you can hear the difference is a different matter. When you get a better set up try loading the same song at three different bit rates and see when you stop noticing the difference.

I ended up swapping my 8gb for 80gb and went lossless all the way but everybody is different.

Welcome to head-fi " Sorry about ........................ ". No I won't say it

 

[Marados]

Do a double blind test on yourself, and then base your decision on that. Simple as that.

 

[feh1325]

320 mp3 is the most common format in my library
some are in 256...224...and even 192

i can tell a difference between 192 and lossless

but it might be a psychological thing

 

[PhaedrusX]

for me it comes down to practicality.
i have everything at 192 and up, simply because hard drive space dictates that for the time being.
if storage isn't an issue, the question becomes: why wouldn't you go lossless or 320, as it should scale with the gear chained to it.

peace.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do a double blind test on yourself, and then base your decision on that. Simple as that.

Exactly!
Only you can tell what's transparent or not. Aka. if its worth going up to 320Kbps...