MP3 Bit Rate: 192kbps vs. 320kpbs - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 02-29-2008, 08:36 AM

Can anyone please tell me what to listen for so that I can learn what the difference is between 192kbps vs 320kbps.

I've listened to same songs, and really can't tell the difference audibly. Otherwise, 320 is a much larger file and that's about it.

Baraka_Guru · 02-29-2008, 08:45 AM

More than anything, it would depend on your sound system. A low-end or mediocre sound delivery won't reveal much difference.

I'd wait for a response from aberkok. He recently told me he's sold on the difference between mp3s and CDs.

Jinn · 02-29-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

I'd wait for a response from aberkok. He recently told me he's sold on the difference between mp3s and CDs

I can definitely hear a difference between 128Kb mp3s and CDs, even on $50 Logitech 5.1 speakers.

Between 192Kbps and 320, though, I can't hear a damn bit of difference. Even with my stupidly expensive noise-canceling headphones.

Redlemon · 02-29-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Can anyone please tell me what to listen for so that I can learn what the difference is between 192kbps vs 320kbps.

I've listened to same songs, and really can't tell the difference audibly. Otherwise, 320 is a much larger file and that's about it.

Do you really WANT to learn the difference? I don't. I fear that if I begin to identify the audio compression blips, I'll hear them constantly, and I'll be forced to rerip and retag my pretty large collection. I choose to live in happy ignorance.

xepherys · 02-29-2008, 10:12 AM

jinn, sound cancelling headphones are expensive because of the cancellation, but generally are just above mid-level in actual audio quality. If you have cans that are <$300 or so, you probably won't be able to tell anyway. Some good Sennheiser's or equivalent and you may. Also, it makes a big difference on the base part of your sound system. $1000 headphones on an iPod isn't going to show much difference, just like $20 headphones on a $5000 sound system won't. It's layers of quality that make the difference.

Hain · 02-29-2008, 02:19 PM

I love this place.

Artifact
An artifact is a noticeable difference between an uncompressed signal and a lossily-compressed copy. Lossy encoding can result in very different kind of artifacts/distortions. Sometimes it's not easy to define why the encoding is non-transparent. There are however many typical encoding artifacts.
ff123's Audio Artifact Training Page
Transparency
In psychoacoustics, transparency is the ideal result of lossy data compression. If a lossily compressed result is perceptually indistinguishible from the uncompressed input, then the compression can be declared to be transparent. In other words, transparency is the situation where artifacts are nonexistant or imperceptible.
ABX
ABX is a method for determining by listening whether two wav files are audibly different from each other. The method is most useful for listening to potential differences near the threshold of audibility. A key feature of this method is that the tests are performed "blind," or without the listener's knowledge of what the file-under-test is. Another key feature is that the influence of chance on the results can be reduced by performing multiple tests (trials).

I got big into this before I busted my left ear. If you can't hear a difference, don't worry about it. If you think you do hear a difference, either perform an ABX or rip that track to a higher quality.

Personally, I rip to lossless (WavPack or FLAC) for long-term storage, and then make low bitrate lossy files (OGG Vorbis or hybrid WavPack) for general playback. "Why such strange file formats?" you ask. I like to make it difficult for people.

vanblah · 02-29-2008, 02:26 PM

The place I notice differences in bit-rates <i>most</i> is in cymbal washes. There is also a lack of clarity in the bottom end; but it's not as noticeable because my system doesn't really have good bottom end anyway.

The cymbal washes (not the initial hit of the cymbal; but the decay) sound "fuzzy."

Also, on the lower bit-rate MP3s (like 128 and lower) there is a definite loss in stereo image quality. It's like the song is in a tunnel or something. I'm guessing that there are phase issues introduced during the compression process ...

Also, I DON'T notice any difference (that I'm aware of) on my home system (at 192 and higher). It's just a Yamaha all-in-one home theater package from Best Buy.

Where I notice these differences is on my recording system:

Soundcards = Presonus Firepod and Aardvark Q10
Amp = Crown D75a
Monitors = Tannoy PBM6.5s

(if anyone is interested).

Willravel · 02-29-2008, 02:37 PM

The stock speakers in my eMac don't do anything, but since I upgraded to Bose I can absolutely hear the difference. This is even more true of my B&O headphones.

Cynth, how do you listen to your tunskies? Radio in the car? Stock iPod headphones? Comp speakers?

Martian · 02-29-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanblah

The place I notice differences in bit-rates <i>most</i> is in cymbal washes. There is also a lack of clarity in the bottom end; but it's not as noticeable because my system doesn't really have good bottom end anyway.

Point of interest: the loss in the bottom end comes more from a stereo technique than from bitrates. The vast majority of mp3's are encoded using 'joint stereo,' which mashes the stereo signals together into a monaural one below a certain frequency threshold. The theory is that since low frequencies are hard to locate anyway, the listener doesn't really lose very much. In practice it depends on the quality of the codec used.

I've never been able to detect a noticeable difference between 192kbps and 320 kbps either, so I'm not the one to ask about that.

vanblah · 02-29-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Point of interest: the loss in the bottom end comes more from a stereo technique than from bitrates. The vast majority of mp3's are encoded using 'joint stereo,' which mashes the stereo signals together into a monaural one below a certain frequency threshold. The theory is that since low frequencies are hard to locate anyway, the listener doesn't really lose very much. In practice it depends on the quality of the codec used.

This would most certainly cause the phase cancellation issues I was talking about. HOWEVER, most stereo recordings have bass center-panned anyway.

Cynthetiq · 03-03-2008, 12:31 PM

thanks for all the information, plenty for me to go through here.

I mostly listen via headphones, some Sony earbuds left over from another time and place. It is about time to replace them. The tunes are stored on the ipod.

In the office I use Altec Lansing computer speakers. I'd love to have a Hi-Fi, but can't listen to music that loud here. It's a publisher so it is rather quiet here, almost like a library but not quite.

As far as wanting to know, I do get the point, but I do not care that much. I'm just trying to be more knowledgable with them. I only value higher quality in some things, not in all. So some TV is higher quality and others isn't. The same would go for audio.

Cynthetiq · 03-18-2008, 06:05 PM

I was clearing out my closet and found some monitor headphones that were used for screening, logging, and transcripting. I used to take them on long plane rides because of the noise cancelling abilities.

AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-M30

they sound 10 million times better than the little Sony earbuds I was using. I don't think I'll give those up since I'd like to find some good earbuds. These don't roll up into my pocket so well.

I have been listening to something in 192 and 320 and the difference is slight. I'd like to say that the 320 is fuller, but I can't discern specifically where they are fuller but there is a difference. I didn't rip this particular one, but I will now with these headphones rip a new CD in 192 and 320 and see if I can't tell the difference there.

Willravel · 03-18-2008, 06:11 PM

Earbuds are evil little creatures.

aberkok · 03-18-2008, 06:14 PM

Honestly, doods.... I can't hear the difference... yet.

It is true, however, that I am getting back to CDs, but not because of any sound superiority. It's more the ritual I miss. I just feel like more of a collector than a listener when I add to my digital library.

I used to have a very deep connection with my disc collection and each member in it. I'd like to get back to that. Also, listening at the computer (I know I don't have to, but that's what tends to happen), cheapens the experience for me.

Cynthetiq · 03-18-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Earbuds are evil little creatures.

yes they are but they fit in your pocket so easily... I dunno about how to roll in San Jose, but I do alot of walking and big headphones while they sound nice are a bit cumbersome to lug about all the time. Rolling up the earbuds and putting it all in the pocket is very nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

Honestly, doods.... I can't hear the difference... yet.

It is true, however, that I am getting back to CDs, but not because of any sound superiority. It's more the ritual I miss. I just feel like more of a collector than a listener when I add to my digital library.

I used to have a very deep connection with my disc collection and each member in it. I'd like to get back to that. Also, listening at the computer (I know I don't have to, but that's what tends to happen), cheapens the experience for me.

I'm finding that in some manner to, I think that's why I like coverflow so much. I don't really know the titles to tracks or albums as much as I know the album covers and songs that came from those albums. All text lumped together it's not so easy for me to remember what is what.

Willravel · 03-18-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

yes they are but they fit in your pocket so easily... I dunno about how to roll in San Jose, but I do alot of walking and big headphones while they sound nice are a bit cumbersome to lug about all the time. Rolling up the earbuds and putting it all in the pocket is very nice.

I've found these are perfect for

this

when I run and fit in my pocket.

02-29-2008, 08:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	MP3 Bit Rate: 192kbps vs. 320kpbs Can anyone please tell me what to listen for so that I can learn what the difference is between 192kbps vs 320kbps. I've listened to same songs, and really can't tell the difference audibly. Otherwise, 320 is a much larger file and that's about it. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-29-2008, 08:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	More than anything, it would depend on your sound system. A low-end or mediocre sound delivery won't reveal much difference. I'd wait for a response from aberkok. He recently told me he's sold on the difference between mp3s and CDs. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-29-2008, 10:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	jinn, sound cancelling headphones are expensive because of the cancellation, but generally are just above mid-level in actual audio quality. If you have cans that are <$300 or so, you probably won't be able to tell anyway. Some good Sennheiser's or equivalent and you may. Also, it makes a big difference on the base part of your sound system. $1000 headphones on an iPod isn't going to show much difference, just like $20 headphones on a $5000 sound system won't. It's layers of quality that make the difference. __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

02-29-2008, 02:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
Hain has a plan Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere	I love this place. Artifact An artifact is a noticeable difference between an uncompressed signal and a lossily-compressed copy. Lossy encoding can result in very different kind of artifacts/distortions. Sometimes it's not easy to define why the encoding is non-transparent. There are however many typical encoding artifacts. ff123's Audio Artifact Training Page Transparency In psychoacoustics, transparency is the ideal result of lossy data compression. If a lossily compressed result is perceptually indistinguishible from the uncompressed input, then the compression can be declared to be transparent. In other words, transparency is the situation where artifacts are nonexistant or imperceptible. ABX ABX is a method for determining by listening whether two wav files are audibly different from each other. The method is most useful for listening to potential differences near the threshold of audibility. A key feature of this method is that the tests are performed "blind," or without the listener's knowledge of what the file-under-test is. Another key feature is that the influence of chance on the results can be reduced by performing multiple tests (trials). I got big into this before I busted my left ear. If you can't hear a difference, don't worry about it. If you think you do hear a difference, either perform an ABX or rip that track to a higher quality. Personally, I rip to lossless (WavPack or FLAC) for long-term storage, and then make low bitrate lossy files (OGG Vorbis or hybrid WavPack) for general playback. "Why such strange file formats?" you ask. I like to make it difficult for people. Last edited by Hain; 02-29-2008 at 02:25 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

02-29-2008, 02:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
vanblah Junkie	The place I notice differences in bit-rates <i>most</i> is in cymbal washes. There is also a lack of clarity in the bottom end; but it's not as noticeable because my system doesn't really have good bottom end anyway. The cymbal washes (not the initial hit of the cymbal; but the decay) sound "fuzzy." Also, on the lower bit-rate MP3s (like 128 and lower) there is a definite loss in stereo image quality. It's like the song is in a tunnel or something. I'm guessing that there are phase issues introduced during the compression process ... Also, I DON'T notice any difference (that I'm aware of) on my home system (at 192 and higher). It's just a Yamaha all-in-one home theater package from Best Buy. Where I notice these differences is on my recording system: Soundcards = Presonus Firepod and Aardvark Q10 Amp = Crown D75a Monitors = Tannoy PBM6.5s (if anyone is interested). Last edited by vanblah; 02-29-2008 at 02:32 PM..

02-29-2008, 02:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The stock speakers in my eMac don't do anything, but since I upgraded to Bose I can absolutely hear the difference. This is even more true of my B&O headphones. Cynth, how do you listen to your tunskies? Radio in the car? Stock iPod headphones? Comp speakers?

03-03-2008, 12:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	thanks for all the information, plenty for me to go through here. I mostly listen via headphones, some Sony earbuds left over from another time and place. It is about time to replace them. The tunes are stored on the ipod. In the office I use Altec Lansing computer speakers. I'd love to have a Hi-Fi, but can't listen to music that loud here. It's a publisher so it is rather quiet here, almost like a library but not quite. As far as wanting to know, I do get the point, but I do not care that much. I'm just trying to be more knowledgable with them. I only value higher quality in some things, not in all. So some TV is higher quality and others isn't. The same would go for audio. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-18-2008, 06:05 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I was clearing out my closet and found some monitor headphones that were used for screening, logging, and transcripting. I used to take them on long plane rides because of the noise cancelling abilities. AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-M30 AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-M30 they sound 10 million times better than the little Sony earbuds I was using. I don't think I'll give those up since I'd like to find some good earbuds. These don't roll up into my pocket so well. I have been listening to something in 192 and 320 and the difference is slight. I'd like to say that the 320 is fuller, but I can't discern specifically where they are fuller but there is a difference. I didn't rip this particular one, but I will now with these headphones rip a new CD in 192 and 320 and see if I can't tell the difference there. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-18-2008, 06:11 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Earbuds are evil little creatures.

03-18-2008, 06:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	Honestly, doods.... I can't hear the difference... yet. It is true, however, that I am getting back to CDs, but not because of any sound superiority. It's more the ritual I miss. I just feel like more of a collector than a listener when I add to my digital library. I used to have a very deep connection with my disc collection and each member in it. I'd like to get back to that. Also, listening at the computer (I know I don't have to, but that's what tends to happen), cheapens the experience for me. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."