Will 192k Mp3's sound rubbish through $200 cans?
Oct 25, 2007 at 4:42 AM Post #17 of 40
If you don't feel that spending $200 on headphones is outrageous in the first place, then no I wouldn't say your collection would sound bad.

Using modern 192kbps codecs I can't hear a difference by scaling up in bit rates. I can however see a difference in how fast my hard drive shrinks.

*I think there is a big drop in quality below 192kbps. When I listen to lower quality (128kbps etc.) the first thing that jumps out as poor quality are the cymbals.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 4:53 AM Post #18 of 40
As long as you're using LAME to encode the MP3s at a fairly high bitrate (VBR V2 or better, I'd say) you won't be able to tell the difference. Only the most golden of ears can differentiate between a VBR V2 file and lossless, so I typically use V1 just to be absolutely sure I'm getting full quality.

At a flat 192kb/s you may notice some slight compression on very very complex passages, depending on what encoder you used. It won't sound like garbage though.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 5:14 AM Post #19 of 40
Probably not rubbish.
But the result depends on several aspects. The music complexity, encoder, and playback system.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 8:01 AM Post #22 of 40
The answer is easy:

Yes, better headphones are always worth it. 192 bit encodings are really excellent sounding in most cases, even when using built-in encoders. You will get an experience out of those headphones that easily surpasses what you would have with lesser headphones, even at 192. Once you have them, try higher bit rate encoding and see if you can tell the difference.

Even on my best headphone gear (Foobar ASIO --> Fubar Dac --> Millet Hybrid --> recabled SR-125/HD580) it's not a difference I can readily discern. On anything less, or on my far better speaker system, the difference is even less pronounced.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM Post #23 of 40
An internal sound card can ruin everything from 128kpbs...
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 7:22 PM Post #25 of 40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Unlikely.

Take this thread, for example: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=252681

NONE of the participants have yet shown with statistically significant results that they can tell a LAME -V2 (~192 kbps) MP3 from the original.


With my V700's running directly off my SbLive! with film caps, I could hear the difference between my LAME encoded VBR MP3's, which are at 320k minimum, and my EAC ripped WAV's. Although, it is not nearly as big a difference as 192's. Let's not even talk about 128's.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM Post #26 of 40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Logistics /img/forum/go_quote.gif
With my V700's running directly off my SbLive! with film caps, I could hear the difference between my LAME encoded VBR MP3's, which are at 320k minimum, and my EAC ripped WAV's. Although, it is not nearly as big a difference as 192's. Let's not even talk about 128's.


Lame VBR is not 320. At the highest setting (-V0) you rarely go up to 280kbps.

When i rip a cd i rip with lame and use -V0, feels and sounds good.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 8:22 PM Post #27 of 40
(flame-suit ON)

I think it depends heavily on the quality of the native recording.

I have some craptacularly mastered Asia, Rush and Queensryche CDs from the 80s that sound just as poor (no worse) at 128-192VBR MP3. Ripping these gems at any rate higher than that is a waste of space/capacity... at least to my ears.

But it all boils down to listener perception, and to argue what each of us perceives is pointless.

FWIW, cans of choice are an RS1, HF1, PK1 and Jays IEMs.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM Post #28 of 40
once you go past 192k (ave) vbr the format matters much less (to the point of not at all past 220k) and the number of pieces of music where you can detect a difference from a lossless version shrinks to a very small number. 320k CBR files are virtually indistinguishable from lossless, and are probably overkill. You won't be able to tell AAC from MP3 from OGG at these bitrates, either. The majority of tests that showed the superiority of OGG files was at 128k, and no one would use that bitrate anymore.

It is unfortunate (for open standards reasons) that ogg appeared as late as it did. MP3's have the 'good enough' quality such that as long as fraunhofer doesn't do anything terribly stupid, ogg vorbis will likely never overtake mp3 as the most common hardware standard.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 8:47 PM Post #29 of 40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Logistics /img/forum/go_quote.gif
With my V700's running directly off my SbLive! with film caps, I could hear the difference between my LAME encoded VBR MP3's, which are at 320k minimum, and my EAC ripped WAV's.


Since 320kbps is the upper boundary for MP3 bitrate, "320k minimum VBR MP3" doesn't make any sense.

Was your comparison done double-blind? Volume-matched?
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM Post #30 of 40
In some cases FLAC already edges out 320kbps MP3.

Enya's "Watermark" converted to FLAC is 330kbps average.

Edgard Varese's works converted to FLAC are close, one piece was 319kbps.

Depends on the average loudness.

As for fellows "failing to hear the difference between 192kbps and CDs", that is either an indicator of the CD mastering, or the nature of music and codec. 192kbps MP3 files sound harsher and flatter even on regular consumer headphones under $20. In fact, higher-end headphones are more forgiving to lossy compression as they will reproduce the sound as well as the defects, rather than the more compressed soundstage of cheaper consumer headphones.

Remember that everything will also depend on the decoder - not all MP3 decoders are 24-bit or 32-bit as required by the standard. So lossless is a win-win regardless, as it plays what's there and no less (or rather, "no loss").

There's a way to ensure a minimum bitrate with LAME VBR, -b switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top