• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

128 Bitrate vs 320 Bitrate

D

deadman_uk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
2,036
I have a large selection of MP3's and many of them are only 128kbps. I understand the higher the bitrate the better quality the MP3 is (to some extent, since anything over 192kbps is generally unnoticeable)

I have an MP3 converter which can convert an MP3 file from 128kbps up to 320kbps. My question is, how does this work? Surely there would be no difference between the sound quality before the conversation to the sound quality after, right?

How can the quality be improved? if the quality was poor to start with, is it right to say the quality cannot get better by increasing the bitrate?

Generally, the higher resolution an image is, the better quality it is (because it has more pixels) but you can't take a low resolution image, increase its resolution and expect the image to be better quality, but thats not the case. Does the same apply to audio?
 
deadman_uk said:
(to some extent, since anything over 192kbps is generally unnoticeable)

I have an MP3 converter which can convert an MP3 file from 128kbps up to 320kbps. My question is, how does this work? Surely there would be no difference between the sound quality before the conversation to the sound quality after, right?

How can the quality be improved? if the quality was poor to start with, is it right to say the quality cannot get better by increasing the bitrate?

Generally, the higher resolution an image is, the better quality it is (because it has more pixels) but you can't take a low resolution image, increase its resolution and expect the image to be better quality, but thats not the case. Does the same apply to audio?
Click to expand...

1. It depends on what you are listening to.
2. No there would not be a difference, but your file size would be larger.
3. You need to find a better quality rip
4. Most certainly. There are an infinite amount of details in sound as there are in visuals
 
If you have a 128 kbps MP3 and you were to re-encode it again to Ogg/MP3/other lossy, you're re-encoding a lossy format with a lossy format, so you will end up losing additional detail in the audio.
 
There is actually a chance for degradation as well. Any lossy format can introduce artifacts, so you might introduce more by converting it twice.

Up-converting or up-sampling (going 44.1khz to 48khz for example ) is totally useless. Once you've lost data by compressing, you can't get it back, exactly the same as with image files.

Also just so you know all programs that claim to "enhance" or make MP3s sound as good as CDs are also BS, the same principle applies. All these programs do is boost frequencies that are still there, they can't re-create frequencies, harmonics, etc., that have been lost. It maybe sound better to you, but using an equalizer will have the same effects usually.
 
I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and 192Kbps on most songs - especially since a lot of my audio library is rock or metal and thus has a lot of detail.

I used to rip CDs as 320Kbps but when I found out my MP3 player (as well as WMP11 obviously) played Lossless WMA, I've been using that. I don't mind FLAC and I have a few files in that, but they can't play on my MP3 player so WMA is better for me.
 
DragonQ said:
I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and 192Kbps on most songs - especially since a lot of my audio library is rock or metal and thus has a lot of detail.

I used to rip CDs as 320Kbps but when I found out my MP3 player (as well as WMP11 obviously) played Lossless WMA, I've been using that. I don't mind FLAC and I have a few files in that, but they can't play on my MP3 player so WMA is better for me.
Click to expand...

However, you can convert between FLAC and any other lossless/lossy compression without degradation.
 
Most of my music is from iTunes, so it's 128 AAC Protected format. But when I buy a CD and rip it myself, I encode it using 256 MP3. I wish that Apple used a higher resolution, and maybe it will in the future. I am hard pressed to hear the difference between 256mp3 and the regular cd with my equipment...but I do not have a high end stereo or anything like that, but I do have m-audio studio monitors, so I get the HONEST sound of the music. It doesn't color it one bit...which is what I wanted, but if I actually wanted speakers just for listening to music instead of recording and mixing, then I would probably still use my Klipsch ProMedia's.
 
What would you rate my sound system?

Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic
Altec Lansing MX5021

Would you call this a good sound system? Is it good enough to play music that is 192kbps bitrate well? Should music sound like it should do?
 
I just use 192 mp3 all the time. MP3 is the most universal so it works with everything (my phone, pda, iPod, and soon to be Zune) plus it is good enough that I cannot tell a large difference going larger. I can tell a diff between 128 and 192 though, even on a crappy system.
 
I agree with Grentz. MP3 is a great format because it's so universal. However, it is a lossy format so you "get what you pay for" in a sense when you use it to encode music. I like to use 192Kbps for most purposes. 192Kbps is a good tradeoff in bit rate between sound quality and file size. It's easy to hear the difference between 128 and 192.
 
wma is compatible with most, if not all, modern MP3 portable devices, and (IMO) is superior to the MP3 codec/format. In other words, a 192Kbps file should sound better than a 192Kbps mp3 file playback, all other variables being equal. 192Kbps MP3 format does not sound as good to me, even when listening on my ZenV:M, compared to wma at the same bitrate. Maybe the MP3 material I have was just encoded using some sort of lower level profile. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
 
My wife and I have done some blind tests on CDs versus 192k...This is not hydrogenaudio forum approved (double blind test or nothing they say!) I have a high-end stereo (Arcam components, B&W speakers) and Grado Sr-125s headphones so I hear the detail!

It is very very hard to tell the difference. However some imaging still disappears (much more noticeable on good speakers, but not on headphones) and if you listen closely to transients, they also disappear. For instance, find an acoustic song with a bit of reverb on the vocals. Listen to the CD version and the 192k MP3, you will hear that half the reverb is just gone. Still MP3 192k does a very, very good job. It gets rid of sounds that you are least likely to notice are missing, like transients.

BTW, I think some double-blind tests performed via the web by Hydrogenaudio people said OGG or Nero's AAC at 192k beats MP3.

I haven't done any extensive testing myself, but I would agree that OGG at 192k does sound a bit better.
 
rblews said:
wma is compatible with most, if not all, modern MP3 portable devices, and (IMO) is superior to the MP3 codec/format. In other words, a 192Kbps file should sound better than a 192Kbps mp3 file playback, all other variables being equal. 192Kbps MP3 format does not sound as good to me, even when listening on my ZenV:M, compared to wma at the same bitrate. Maybe the MP3 material I have was just encoded using some sort of lower level profile. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
Click to expand...


WMA is not as universal for other things though. I also do Video editing and no video editing software I have supports WMA. For iPod, it has to be converted. For my phone, it has to be converted.

Honestly the encoder does make a big difference. The iTunes encoder and FreeRip http://www.mgshareware.com/frmmain.shtml are two of the best I have found for encoding MP3s. WMP is also decent at it.

It is weird since technically anything over 192 should not be distinguishable to the human ear, but since enoders never reach ideal processing, you can tell a difference. Frankly I do not feel like reencoding over 3500 songs to anything besides MP3 since I already did the dance with MP3 :p
 
320 kb is the limit where it get hard to notice. I have no problem spotting the difference between 192 and 320 with my headphones.
 
oqvist said:
320 kb is the limit where it get hard to notice. I have no problem spotting the difference between 192 and 320 with my headphones.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm impressed. I'm hard pressed telling the difference between 192 to 320.
 
I couldn´t with the DT 770 and A900 but with the Proline 750 I can. I don´t think my ears are that super lol.
 
deadman_uk said:
Really? I'm impressed. I'm hard pressed telling the difference between 192 to 320.
Click to expand...

It depends what you're listening to and how much you bother to care, in my case. The difference I notice between 320 and lossless tends to be inexplicable; it just seems like there is more color.
 
I would say mostly the quality of the speakers/headphones and the source of course.

easier noticed with headphones. Not even sure how much the speakers would cost that you would be able to hear the difference with...

The Ultrasone Proline is probably as unforgiving for bad recordings as it gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top