128 kbps or 320 kbps, can you tell the difference?

[Malikarcanum]

 

[Riff Raff]

Honestly can't tell the difference. Eh, doesn't bother me.

 

[METALPRIEST]

Got it wrong on the first try....TBH they sound pretty damn colse to me.

 

[Berserker]

I was saying the same thing. Some music snobs will tell you there is a huge difference but I think either my speakers are too shitty to tell or it's like "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". The only difference I can hear in mp3 and flac (I have of the same songs) is the live tracks you hear more noise and more chatter in the flac. Plus they take up ten times as much hard drive space.

I have 100 GB of mp3 of variable bit rate. If it was all lossless I would need a terabyte just for music which is ridiculous. If you are buying music, and you are some kind of producer or something where you need industry level quality tracks, by all means it's great. But for the average joe listening to music on a computer, it sounds good in mp3 and the difference is negligible at best.

 

[LG]

^^I'm not a "music snob" but if all of you that can't tell the difference are right then answer me this simple question.

Why on earth when they record in the studios are they using the Largest capacity format possible, either the analog tape or the digital equivalent of 24/94 or 24-192?

Simple answer because there is a Massive difference. I can tell easily on my set up, but I do admit if you are using an ipod/sound dock etc. or little PC speakers or ear buds then the differences are almost impossible to detect.

I could play a song off Leftoverture by Kansas, a vinyl rip in FLAC then a 128 KBS or 320 KBS MP3 and everyone one of you would be able to hear such a massive difference you would never look at a lossy codec the same again.

For portable players, or if you are hard pressed for space on your HD then I understand and sympathize, me I have all my music in Lossless format, if I need more space I get another HD they aren't that expensive now that Thailand's factories are back at 100% and have been for a while.

And when you attend a live concert, would you be happy if the band played every 5th note of a song? I doubt it very much, and that is what compression does to a song.

 

[Johnny DYR]

Thought I would've aced it. Thought I had a discriminate ear. Maybe all those loud concerts had an effect on me.

 

[gguerra]

To me it all depends on what equipment you are using to reproduce the sound. If it is on a portable mp3 player or ipod then it doesnt make much of a difference. If you are using a stereo or surround receiver with good quality speakers than yes a FLAC or similar is MUCH better and pretty close to the original CD or WAV. A 320kbps MP3 is still an MP3 but strikes a pretty good balance when comparing sound quality and considering storage requirements. If you have a 1TB drive to store music then by all means go with the FLAC but if you have just 4 or 8 GB and you want to have a good selection of songs go with the 128kbps MP3. A large of majority of "downloaded" MP3's will be in either the 128 or 192 kbps format.

 

[Berserker]

That makes sense. I use small computer speakers, 5w-10w per speaker if I had to guess. That is probably why I can't tell then, because my equipment is so cheap/low end.

 

[2LITTLETIME]

Good thread.I was showing my next door neighbour my headphones the other day and i listened to some of his tracks through his walkman.The singing on the tracks sounded very distorted.Low and behold when he booted up his desk top all of his files were 128.We then ripped one of his albums at 320 and the problem was gone.I have lots of downloads and the majority of the time under 192 sounds dreadfull.Ive done checks with 320 and apple lossless(cant tell the difference)I might add that i cannot tell the difference between 192 and 320.I suppose it depends on your system or headphones

 

[gorgon]

.flac/WAV or nothing.