128kbps & 320kbps - Can anyone tell the difference?
 

Because I'm not sure I can. I recently just burned a Nirvana personal hits cd and cranked it in my truck and It sounded perfect to the point where it made me think if there was really a difference in sound quality from 128 to 320.

Granted I ripped all files from the original source discs first to make the cd but they were still ripped at 128.

So where's the difference in sound quality come in? Do I need to buy a $600.00 Dennon cd player or something to notice a difference?

I can usually hear distortion at 128 kbps. Some songs are worse than others. Using a fixed bitrate seems silly, to me. You're encoding silence and super-complex sounds at the same rate. VRB makes much more sense, encoding silence at very low levels and complex sounds get higher levels.

I can.

On headphone (regular old $15 headphone from Best Buy), yes.

You don't say what format you're ripping to (MP3, AAC or other) or what encoder you're using, which are big factors, but the general answer is, hell yes.

A moving vehicle isn't the best environment to do a critical listening test, but even there I can't stand 128kbps MP3. You have road noise to contend with, inferior acoustics and possibly-iffy equipment (you also don't say what kind of equipment your truck has).

On an iPod using Shure E4c earbuds, I can definitely tell a difference, and it isn't subtle.

I've re-encoded a large part of my collection from 128 to 192 and I can hear the difference.

Now, can anyone hear the difference between 192 and 320?

I'm ripping to MP3 through windows media player (11....on Vista if that even makes a difference) I'm not sure what kind of encoder WMP uses.

The system in my truck is a stock system but it sounds fan-frggin-tastic - It came special with the model I bought (it's also a 6 disc in dash) Sorry, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the name of it is and I can't remember where I put my manuals that come with the vehicle either (sad I know). It really is impressive though and I don't have an extended cab on my truck either - it really pumps.

I honestly can't tell the difference - never have been able to I guess but since I never got into the whole ipod thing, I also never had a chance to try and hear the difference on ear phones.

After being in/around the music biz for 30+ years (my first onstage experience playing guitar happened when I was 12, in front of about 6,000), I only have this to say; the difference is negligible. But if you hear it and don't like it, go hi-tech. If you don't, or it makes no difference to you, be thankful you don't have to 1)buy a buncha hi-tech junk, or 2)be dissatisfied with what you're listening to when in others' homes/vehicles, or 3) both. I am incredibly picky about live performance tone, but as far as mp3's go, I hear very little to no difference at 128kbps, and none at 196kbps or above on pre-recorded music.

only if my ears are next to the speakers. but i like to go "mid-range" and encode all mine at 192 kbps just for when i turn it up way loud.

I find myself really getting into making my own personal cd's as of late. I know, "Have you been living under a rock" - not at all. I just never really thought it would be a good route to take and although I keep going back and forth on just wanting everything on a USB stick - more and more everyday I find myself wanting to take that route. I guess I'm just finally seeing no reason not to. I mean I like the artwork and everything that comes with a cd but It's not like I'm always going back to it. It's also just too easy to sit on my lazy ass and buy and album for $8.99 to $9.99 online...oh, and a quick question on that as well - when you buy albums online, after they are finished downloading, does the artwork show up on the icon stored on your computer like it would if you just a ripped a cd? I've always wondered if it did or not.

I'm also stuck at a spot as to which site would be the best for downloading MP3's - mainly just looking for one that doesn't give me a shitload of problems when it comes to burning them after the purchase. I know Amazon is adding a music download store to their site soon so maybe that will be the way to go.

I won't listen to anything encoded below 192, and go for higher if I can.

Same here. I can tell the difference between 128 and 192 but not 192 and 320. I've ripped everything at 192.

It depends on the store. iTunes downloads everything you need and even lets you print CD cases with the album artwork. Lately they've been including PDF files with the entire CD liner, which is nice.

Not sure about the other sites. I know both Amazon and iTunes are going to have songs from certain labels with no DRM on them. (iTunes is EMI, I want to say Universal is going to go DRM-free with Amazon)

"and cranked it in my truck "

You have to be fucking kidding me...........

It also depends on the music. Some styles of music can get away with a lower bit rate, while others benefit more from a higher one.

That's pretty much what I do too.

Oh, how do you get the PDFs there?

Do you have iTunes set to download artwork or something?

I've only been able to get the artwork within itunes by copying the image then pasting it in an image program for saving. I think it's usually 600x600 px which seems like good enough quality but I don't print them. Wonder if the pdfs are higher quality.

Universal going drm free at amazon would be awesome. I love the Itunes Plus. I am an AAC fan - usually rip at 256kb - don't care too much about file size. I think MP3 is quite good but AAC consistently sounds more rich.

Maybe this belongs in Tech talk.

yeah i can hear the difference..slightly........no difference between 192 and 320 though

I don't think I could tell the difference between that. Maybe... (on headphones, of course)

If you have an MP3 at 128, and you re-encode it to 192, does that even do anything?

No, an mp3 isn't a .zip file. Likewise, converting an mp3 to a .wav only changes the file extension, not the material within the file.

I used to have everything at 192, but I have recently made the transition to re upping everything in ALAC (Apple Lossless). I have a few CD's at 320, but nothing lower than that. It's worth it to me.

Wait ... you renecoded a 128kb mp3 to 192kb and hear a difference? I dont think thats possible.

Sometimes I can tell the difference. It depends on what kind of music, what system I'm playing it on, and how loud I have it.

Since space isn't really an issue any more, I just encode at 320vbr, I think. I don't really remember, as I set it up a year or two ago.

You can only get them if you purchase a whole album.

I can.

But it's not like I can listen to an MP3 and say that it's a 128kbps or a 192kbps or a LAME VBR.

I'd say that it not only depends on the type of music, but also the quality of the MP3 itself. I think that various encoders produce different results. I've heard a few 128s that sounded very good, as well as a few 192 and greater that sounded awful.

But for the most part, the lower the bitrate, the more likely it is to sound like and old cassette or a lousy AM radio broadcast.

I listen to a lot of metal (particularly speed and thrash) and that stuff really needs a high bitrate as a lot of the detail in the sound easily gets lost.

I have no idea what the state of the art is now, but I do know back in '97 when I was huge into mp3s a guy on an irc channel I frequented did some waveform comparisons of various (quality) encoders and the original CD. According to his findings a 128kbps was 92% similar to the original differing most greatly in the highs and lows. A 192kbps was around 98.5%.

I certainly "think" I can tell the difference between a .flac and a 192kbps but I honestly haven't done ABX compares to see if it's just psychological. The .flacs just seem to have more pop.

Interestingly enough, one of my honest to goodness CDs from a European band was recorded on the cheap using musicians in different studios who recorded their parts separately and then sent them into the main studio where the vocalist was working. To my ears (and I'm rarely wrong about these things) the drummer sent in at least some of his tracks as 128kbps mp3s. On at least two tracks there is the tell tale shimmery awfulness that pervades 128bit encodes. Completely blows my mind, and while I like the CD, it makes it really hard to listen to.

I grew tired of mp3s, so I recently installed a turntable in my car. The sound quality is excellent, but I can't go more than 5 mph. :(

I can definitely hear the lost definition in 128. Especially in headphones, a 128 MP3 or AAC sounds weirdly bloodless and flat. I always rip at 320, storage is cheap. However, it's more difficult to hear the difference between 192 and 320, IMO.

Having said all of that, even at 320, it's not that hard to hear the difference between an MP3 and a WAV. This is especially true with older albums that actually have dynamic range. With the newer, compressed/clipped, "it goes to eleven", pegged recordings, it matters much less.

It will do something, but it's likely to make the mp3 sound worse, since you're lossy compressing something that's already been lossy compressed.

That's technically not true, since the .wav file is going to be a much larger file, presuming you saved the .wav as uncompressed PCM. It's going to have the exact same audio info as the original .mp3, but in a larger, uncompressed format.

Theoretically, it sure as heck SHOULD do something...make the resulting mp3 sound WORSE than before. MP3 is a lossy algorithm which means that by encoding an original sound file, you are losing a good deal of information from the source...depending on the encoder, some are more efficient than others at minimizing the harsh effects of information loss. However, you can't get back the information that was originally discarded so if you try to go back to wav or to re-process the 128 kbps file into a HIGHER bitrate (or transcode to ogg,aac, etc...), the primary effect is to create a less pleasing mp3 than you had before. This is one of the reasons, I fail to understand anyone who has gone 'download only.' Even though I listen to all my files digitally, I don't buy online and still support CD's just to make sure I can control the quality of my listening experience.

Oh, and I can most definitely hear the difference between 128 kbps and 192 kbps in my car ('95 tbird with premium sound system). I use alt-preset-standard via EAC or dbPowerAmp which results in a VBR file averaging around 192 kbps.

Michael

Yes, there's a clear difference and 128kbps is a bitrate unsuitable for music except when listened to under the least critical circumstances, like when doing construction work.

Must agree. Go with 320.

And only certain albums have them.

I have been importing my CDs to iTunes at 256kbps AAC. I can tell a difference between that and 128kbps AAC. Although the stuff I have bought at the iTunes store encoded at 128kpbs sounds better than the albulms I've ripped at that bitrate.

I meant that I was re-ripping my CDs at 192 (AAC) instead of 128.

That's what I meant. I wasn't trying to talk tech, just sound quality. ;)

Slightly off topic, but what's a good MP3 ripping program, quality-wise? I notice people have said some preserve quality better than others.

Now I have a new iMac and I was planning on re-ripping everything at 128K because of this even though I have the 160GB classic now.

I have already ripped some newer CDs at 128 on the new iMac.

So my question is - If I went back and reripped in Apple lossless or something else would its just replace the file?

I noticed thats what Itunes does if you re-purchase your old songs in the new DRM free songs for the upgrade fee.

Anyway I originally ripped in lossless because I have a lot of Jazz CDs. I think it's best to just stay with that system, although the numerous itunes downloads I have made have never bothered me.

Exact Audio Copy (EAC) coupled with the LAME encoder. Both are free.