• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

128 or 256 bit for MP3s?

B

Bob151

Senior member
I'm just now starting to populate my Nomad C (6GB version) with some of my audio CDs. There are a number of options re: the sampling rate and a friend said always do 256. 256 is quite large and my ears can't hear much of a diff between the 2, but I don't have a $2500 stereo system either.

Is there significant audible quality sacrificed at 128 (someday, maybe I'll have system that will expose the difference, who knows)? Comments, opinions?

Thanks
 
I encode at 256kb on all my cd's...

Try to shoot for higher mp3's when downloading, but submit if I can't find anything higher than 128...
 
Most people can't distinguish between 128kbps and 256kbps when using $10,000 headphone systems. You will probably be using a <$500 system. You figure it out...
 


<< Most people can't distinguish between 128kbps and 256kbps when using $10,000 headphone systems. You will probably be using a <$500 system. You figure it out... >>

Bull. 96-128kbps mp3s are easily distinguishable from 256kbps mp3s on even $180 sound systems. I know cause I just got one downstairs, I was used to my $55 thing in my room, and I noticed a massive difference in the new one, and realized that there WAS a big diff between the MP3s quality. 128 and 160 isn't much, but 128 and 256, there's a big difference.

-RSI
 
oh please, people. wake up and smell all that poop you just sh!t out on the floor. unless you're an audiophile, you won't noticed a huge difference. just let me play any mp3 without telling you what bitrate they are, i bet you can't tell what the bitrate is.
 
You can hear, you just have to compare a 256 and a 128 song, and you can notice the difference, especially on headphones. Listen to the cymbals especially, they get messed up.
Also, listen to a low bitrate song (ie 56) and hear how bad it sounds, then a 128 song, and you'll still hear some of the weirdness mp3 introduces. 192+ is good though.

EDIT: spelling
 
I used to get only 192, but then I stopped being able to find most of the things I was looking for at that bitrate, what program are you running to find mp3's?
 


<< oh please, people. wake up and smell all that poop you just sh!t out on the floor. unless you're an audiophile, you won't noticed a huge difference. just let me play any mp3 without telling you what bitrate they are, i bet you can't tell what the bitrate is. >>


You are full of it. Maybe I don't know the diffrence, but you tell me, you can't hear a diffrence between 128 and 192? For my ears, 192 = CD quality. Can't hear a difference between CD and 192, but 128.... that's just bullcrap.
 


<< Most people can't distinguish between 128kbps and 256kbps when using $10,000 headphone systems. You will probably be using a <$500 system. You figure it out... >>

Uh, I have a C$70 speaker system and I can tell the difference between 128 and 192/256 very easily.




btw, I always encode using the latest LAME beta (3.89 b1 I think it's at right now) @ 256k.
 
I'm no audio expert, but most of the time I can tell the difference between 192 and 128. Although 128 sounds pretty good, 192 sounds...well better. I have a hard time telling apart 160+ mp3s.
 
To all you people who are describing huge differences between 128 and 192-256 kbps MP3s, I suggest you pull out a favorite CD, rip a song, encode the same wav with LAME at 128 kbps and 256 kbps. Listen to them both side by side and come back here and post your results. Remember, it's critical that you use LAME, we want to use a proven encoder to keep variables to a minimum.
 
courtesy of r3mix.net

Facts:

128 kbit/s is not cd quality
256 kbit/s is cd quality (x) (in case of Lame or some Fraunhofer, not Xing)

In february 2000 c't magazin organised a blind listening test. 300 Audiophiles were involved, finalists tested 17 1-min clips from different artists (classic and pop):

original CD recording

128 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac
256 Kbit/s Joint Stereo [MusicMatch (FhG) v4.4] encoded PC decoded Mac

all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio on:

B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14 with amp PM14 (Straightwire Pro cabling and extra's) [DM30000- so bit more than $15000]
Sennheiser Orpheus Electrostatic Reference-headphones with tweaked accompanying amp (digital and analog out) [>$10000]

Conclusions:

90% of the 128 Kbit material was picked out

MP3@256 was rated to have the same music quality as cd!

If you find MP3@256 to be of inferior quality compared to the original cd, you're very likely to be doing something wrong with the test (correct decoder, no objective double blind testing, DSP filters distorting the process, ...) Maybe this is something for you. You can always read the article in the german c't 6/2000 on p92.

The treshold of mp3 transparency lies somewhere between 128kbit/s and 256kbit/s, depending on the kind of music and your hearing and equipment.
 
To RSI and other smartasses: Note that I said most people, not all people. And RSI, I really doubt you have the ear to hear a big difference between 128kbps and 256kbps--it's most likely psychological effect. I suggest you do a blind test, using LAME-encoded mp3s, and then report your results back to us.

To Yucky: They weren't using cheap $50 headphones. If they repeated the experiment with some cheap headphones, I doubt they could pick out 50% of the 128kbps material. Also, note that these were not average people, but audiophiles with highly-tuned ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top