Is MP3 256 kbps good enough?

Which downloadable music format is good enough?

  • Heck, I cant hear the difference between old 128 kbps mp3 and CD, ats all the same.

    Votes: 7 14.9%

  • Amazon 256 kbps mp3 is fine, anyone who needs more is a buffer.

    Votes: 25 53.2%

  • iTunes 256 kbps M4A is definately sweeter to my ears than mp3 at same bitrate.

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • It's all crap...the only way to enjoy digital music is...(please post)

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • Total voters
    47
S

schoenda

Gawd
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Messages
860
For your everyday music listening pleasure, do the major download services like Amazon or iTunes cut the mustard with their 256 kbps sampled music?
 
Unless you have some pretty serious equipment, it should be fine... but I wouldn't buy lossy music when there are CDs to be had. There's no good reason to settle for less than perfect copies.
 
I had to vote #2 because for 98% of the population (pulling that outta my ass), they don't have the proper equipment to hear the difference. They're the ones using the stock earbuds or $20 skullcandy buds.

For the other 2% of folks who actually have mid-range or better equipment, we have other sources.
 
It's good enough for my ears, but not good enough to get me to pull out my wallet when I can buy the CD for around the same price and transcode to any format I want.
 
I was going to vote but, the poll just doesn't have adequate options. To answer the question "Is MP3 256 kbps good enough?" there should be the basic answer: Yes, it is, for most anyone."

Put that answer/choice on the poll and that's what I'd vote for, but pay attention to the "for most anyone" part because that's what's the most relevant thing overall:

MOST people, meaning the overwhelming majority of humans, could not do proper ABX testing of a 256 Kbps MP3 file (hopefully encoded by LAME) from the original CD content, and that's all that matters.

And that's all there is to it.

Yes, it is, for most anyone. :)
 
Here is a great test that is pretty scientific. Listen to the 320 track then the 128 track then the X track. Then you choose which one the X track is. Do this 16 times and if your answer around 50% right, you cant tell which is which. I got 7 right out of 16 for 44%. Obviously I cant tell a difference, thats the same percentage Id get if I flipped a coin 16 times. If you pick 14 out of 16 right, then you obviously can hear a difference.

25608.png


http://mp3ornot.com/
 
If I were buying music online I'd want it in a lossless format; if I'm ripping music from a CD that I own then I just use the standard VBR config that is recommended on some site. I at least want a clean original if possible.

I tried that listening test and I could hear a difference between A and B near the end when the drums hit but that seemed to change somewhere in the test. I think back when MP3 encoding was young, there was some really poor encoding software out there that could manage to screw up 128kbps MP3s; this software introduced lots of noise and hissing after encoding while other software did a much cleaner job. Now days you could probably do well with CBR 128kbps using LAME but with all the storage space we have why not go higher?
 
It all depends on the genre for me. I definitely have the equipment to tell the difference but in some genres where the music isnt complex, a lower bitrate sounds fine, but for most of the stuff i listen to, 256 isnt good enough. 320kbps is the minimum and i prefer flac or other lossless
 
Go for the highest bit-rate you can, hard drives are cheap nowadays. If portable media player space is an issue, I'd make a folder with compressed files just for your media player. You can go down, but you can't go back up if you don't have the original.
 
i guess its fine, but i would urge you to check out vorbis or aac-lc if there are no compatibility issues.
 
Gym Rat said:
Here is a great test that is pretty scientific. Listen to the 320 track then the 128 track then the X track. Then you choose which one the X track is. Do this 16 times and if your answer around 50% right, you cant tell which is which. I got 7 right out of 16 for 44%. Obviously I cant tell a difference, thats the same percentage Id get if I flipped a coin 16 times. If you pick 14 out of 16 right, then you obviously can hear a difference.

25608.png


http://mp3ornot.com/
Click to expand...

If that is real, I sure as hell can't tell the difference. But I have always felt that I could tell the difference above 128k, except in the amount of space on my hard drive.
 
Is 256 more than enough for daily/portable/car use? Yes, definately. If space is not any issue, there is no harm in going for the best possible, whether its FLAC or 320 mp3, simply because you're not losing anything (other than space).

... and there is a difference between 256k and lossless, but I can't the justify the difference in... hype.
 
#2. With a Xonar DG and AD500 cans MP3@128 sounds compressed, there is no separation between the instruments, and it's a wall of noise.

Above MP3@256 I basically can't tell the difference. The music as a whole sounds as good to my ears as MP3@320 and by extension of that as good as FLAC.

But none of what I wrote above means that I would settle for lossy formats if I were given the option. FLAC and lossless in general means that you have a bit-perfect copy of the original recording, and with good enough equipment that could make a difference. Besides that, having lossless music means you can encode at any time to match the specific device you plan on using the music with, whether it be a DAP, or anything else. If you can, get lossless.
 
Amazon's 256kbps mp3's are fine for everyday listening, though I prefer to get lossless whenever I can
 
Amazon 256K is pretty good, but I would prefer higher if possible. You can tell the differences between FLAC and 256K easily once you have it set up on a high end system with a receiver and speakers.

I recognize that many people don't have systems like my high end setups so I see why 256k is the standard, especially with all the shitty headphones and ear buds people use. I am sure many people here have high end systems and headphones capable of telling the differences. Try listening to a DVD-A or DTS audio CD and it is like night and day.
 
ok, I went to mp3ornot.com, and I have to say, both the 320 and the 128 sound awful. That was my conclusion. And I think 320 is quite capable of sounding imperceptible from lossless, so I don't really put faith in that test.
 
Gym Rat said:
If you pick 14 out of 16 right, then you obviously can hear a difference.
Click to expand...
I actually don't consider that a great confidence level. Achieve the same score twice, however, and I would consider the result very significant.

grimreeferx09 said:
i guess its fine, but i would urge you to check out vorbis or aac-lc if there are no compatibility issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah, AAC is quite good. I've failed listening tests at around 64kbps (HE-AAC) before. My ears aren't well-trained to typical lossy artifacts, but that's pretty impressive all the same.
 
phide...I think what is important about a 14/16 score is that it is likely quite specific for him actually being able to tell the difference...astronomically so I would think...as far as reproducibility...you could say he reproduced his ability to discern the difference 14 out of 16 times...further reproducibility...does he get 14/16 each time?...is not the point as that would speak to precision, which is almost mute at this point...control for all factors, salt intake as it changes tympanic membrane circulation, put him in a sound studio room, etc...wouldn't add anything much, do you think?

BTW, its all obviously IMHO and just saying...
 
I voted Amazon MP3, presuming that the iTunes M4A is properly ripped, you probably aren't going to hear much of a difference between the two. However, all too often, music from iTunes sounds like it has been re-ripped from a really, really low bit rate recording, just to make it "256Kbps".

For day to day listening on 99% of equipment, the car, your iPod, the difference might be there, but you won't notice it. The iPod, as bad as it is, I can hear the difference. However, at home, running a full Linn setup, and...using George Michael's "Jesus to a Child", the first part with strings, as a test...a 320Kbps MP3 file sounds very synth-like, without much depth, whereas a FLAC recording sounds a world apart, completely different, much more acoustic. So...it's very much equipment dependent :)
 
I prefer CDs and/or vinyl. If I only need one song and only intend on using it for casual listening, I have no problem with Amazon 256k mp3.
 
For a while I started using FLAC because it was the best. Recently I've realized I cannot tell the difference between (LAME) variable MP3s and FLAC, and on top of that I can easily and quickly load them onto my MP3 player and iPhone without thinking twice. I use variable because it cuts down on size while still maintaining the maximum quality (size is somewhat an issue on my 16GB iPhone)

I have a set of Dennon 2000 and a Bithead amp and I couldn't tell the difference half the time on that mp3 or not site. Same goes when I was comparing my LAME collection against MP3s with quality encoding
 
I've done my own testing down the years with equipment of various levels of quality and music from different genres and I personally lose the ability to tell the difference once you go above about 192kbps with pretty much any encoder.
 
Depends on the heaphones. If you listen to anything on the crappy heaphones that come with most mp3 players then you'll have trouble hearing the difference between 256kb/s mp3 and higher quality (especially those shitty ipod headphones, even 128kb/s mp3 then...). With studio monitor or decent headphones you can hear the difference.
 
It's also worth noting that transcoding between lossy formats introduces significant loss of sound quality. If you need your music is some other format in the future... maybe 10 years from now, you are going to want a lossless source to convert from.
 
Mr. B said:
It's also worth noting that transcoding between lossy formats introduces significant loss of sound quality. If you need your music is some other format in the future... maybe 10 years from now, you are going to want a lossless source to convert from.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Which is why consumers should be demanding lossless downloads from services like iTunes, Amazon, etc.

Very sad how clueless the vast majority of them are, paying $0.99 a pop for lossy copies that can never be transcoded to other formats/bitrates for special purposes (mobile, car, future improved codecs, etc.).

What's especially depressing is that I doubt it's even bandwidth these companies are concerned with anymore (in terms of offering FLAC/ALAC); it's simply the fact that your typical Joe Blow might have some devices that don't support lossless formats, and he's too dumb to fire up foobar or dbPowerAmp and make an MP3 copy, so he prefers buying in MP3 format!

The free market sure can suck for the 5% who actually stay in the loop with the technology they're buying.
 
Last edited:
My basic advice for people is not to worry. I mean this in two ways:

1) Don't worry about lossless or ultra high bitrate audio. 256k for sure is "good enough" for anyone. Yes even people with good equipment. It sounds fine. there may be subtle differences but it really isn't a big deal. If you get a 256k or better MP3 or AAC, and even really 192k, then just don't worry, be happy with it.

2) Don't worry about trying to find the smallest size you can compress something to. Space is really, really cheap these days. There's no point in finagling if you can lower the bitrate a bit more and save a tiny bit of space. Even lossless or uncompressed audio just isn't big enough to be a concern. so when you rip your own, rip high quality and be happy.
 
Sycraft said:
1) Don't worry about lossless or ultra high bitrate audio. 256k for sure is "good enough" for anyone. Yes even people with good equipment. It sounds fine. there may be subtle differences but it really isn't a big deal. If you get a 256k or better MP3 or AAC, and even really 192k, then just don't worry, be happy with it.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, for reasons I enumerated in the post above yours.

I'm not going to "be happy" if I lose the ability to transcode to formats and bitrates of my choice. If I'm going to pay for a song, I expect this flexibility.

2) Don't worry about trying to find the smallest size you can compress something to. Space is really, really cheap these days. There's no point in finagling if you can lower the bitrate a bit more and save a tiny bit of space. Even lossless or uncompressed audio just isn't big enough to be a concern. so when you rip your own, rip high quality and be happy.
Click to expand...
This is true for listening at home, but not necessarily in other cases. For example, the largest affordable microSD cards are still only 16 GB. I had to compress my FLAC library to 160kbps AAC in order to fit it all on my Android phone's SD card. And, linking back to my point about why lossy formats are unacceptable as primary copies, I would *NOT* have been able to do this had I ripped my music to 256kbps MP3 instead of FLAC.
 
Mr. B said:
It's also worth noting that transcoding between lossy formats introduces significant loss of sound quality. If you need your music is some other format in the future... maybe 10 years from now, you are going to want a lossless source to convert from.
Click to expand...

This as well basically.

But then again the media companies would probably like to resell you the same content in another format, so there really is no incentive for them to change.
 
From all I've read, AAC encoded tracks will generally sound better than MP3 at the same bitrate. Though this difference tends to disappear at around 256kbps and up. The main advantage is that you can encode an AAC track at a lower bitrate (and thus have a lower filesize as a result) and it will have the same audio quality as an MP3 at a higher bitrate.

But as others have said 256kbps MP3 should sound fine for the most part. I'd be more confident if I knew whether or not they were LAME-VBR encoded, but from the tracks I've downloaded from Amazon's store, they sound decent (they're CBR though, and I've seen no indication that they are LAME encoded). I still wish they had lossless tracks available, just so I'd have the option of encoding them how I want (thats the main reason most people like FLAC encoded tracks).
 
brettjrob said:
I don't agree, for reasons I enumerated in the post above yours.

I'm not going to "be happy" if I lose the ability to transcode to formats and bitrates of my choice. If I'm going to pay for a song, I expect this flexibility.
Click to expand...

Deal with it, it really isn't that big a deal. Audiophiles get way too picky about this stuff (and I speak as someone with about $6000 of audio equipment hooked to his computer). In video, you simply accept recompression as a way of life. You don't shoot uncompressed video. Even high end stuff like the RedOne shoots compressed. You then set your edits on thos compressed files, or sometimes recompress to another lossy intermediate format (FinalCut likes to convert everything to ProRes) and then recompress again to the final format.

It works fine. I've shot AVCHD (H.264, long-GOP) video and edited it down to Blu-ray (also H.264, long-GOP) and the results look good.

Going nuts over lossless is silly. I'll take it if it is available because space is so plentiful, but I don't worry about it. 256k is fine. Heck 256k AC-3 is what pro AVCHD cameras record their audio at. I also don't worry about recoding to lower bitrates, if needed. Starting with 256k and going to 128k doesn't give you much difference from starting with PCM and going to 128k.

It just isn't something worth getting worked up over.
 
The difference is that there are practical reasons due to technological limitations to not work with uncompressed video. However if you compare the size difference of lossless vs. lossy audio formats relative to modern storage and connection speeds, from the consumer end it seems trivial to want those space savings.
 
256kbps is fine...unless you are an audiophile, then you would want an uncompressed audio file.
 
It really depends on what program you use to rip and encode to MP3.

There are also different "quality" settings on encoders when using the same bitrate.

You can set 128k to "high quality" and it will sound just the same or better than the 256k "low quality" choice.

Also, if you have a very good sound setup it is pretty easy to tell the difference between 256k and 384k.

Higher than 384k and I really can't tell on my setup.

256k is pretty good, 128k is just ok.
 
From my experience, the quality of the master is the most important factor. Other than that, though, I prefer iTunes encoding over Amazon encoding. I really detest iTunes and do not have an i-anything, but I can hear the difference and it bothered me to the point of installing it and rebuying the songs I already owned from Amazon on iTunes. Every ear is different, so do what sounds best to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top