320Kb/s DOES sound better than 256Kb/s...or is it in my head?

[MichaelD]

Up until a few minutes ago...for the past...oh four years or so...I have believed and argued that 256Kb/s is CD quality and you can't hear a diff b/t 256 and higher bitrates.

But I just encoded the Telarc version of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (yeah, the one with the big, canons, digitally recorded! ) at 320 b/c I wanted to ensure the highest-quality MP3 possible.

I swear it sounds exactly like the CD! :Q There's an air of transparency to this MP3 that isn't present on others encoded at 256...maybe b/c it's a Telarc recording? I dunno. Cymbals have more crash and deeper decay. L/R panning seems more fluid. I just wanted to post my opinion and see what you guys thought.

I know MP3 Bitrate is a minefield of a topic and I'm not throwing a chair in a crowded bar or anything...just talking!


Side Note:
Except for this one CD, my entire 325+ CD collection is encoded at 256Kb/s. It took me about 6 months to do. :disgust: I may just be redoing it....:Q

*edit*

I guess I should add the track were ripped with EAC v0.95 prebeta (the latest one...no bugs that I can find!) and encoded with LAME v.3.92/Razorlame 1.15 frontend.

 

[CTho9305]

You are correct. I tend to find that different types of music expose bitrate issues more. Stuff with overdriven guitars tends not to show it, because you get so much noise in the original music it's hard to tell the difference .

 

[BenSkywalker]

But I just encoded the Telarc version of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (yeah, the one with the big, canons, digitally recorded! ) at 320 b/c I wanted to ensure the highest-quality MP3 possible.

How good is your audio setup? 320Kb/sec MP3 sounds like sh!t(dead serious), it isn't remotely close to CD quality audio(which itself isn't perfect by any means). If you are playing it on a budget audio solution 256Kb may sound like CD quality, but that is only because you can't hear how badly the sound quality is destroyed as you couldn't hear it in the first place. I'm assuming you have either poor speakers, a poor soundcard or are using a sound solution with a significantly sub par DAC.

Get yourself a semi decent audio setup- M-Audio or Audigy2 and say a set of Senn500/Grado200 series or so and listen to DVD audio(DVD-A, not MPEG2's audio stream which isn't that great) and then 320Kb/sec MP3 and you'll laugh at how bad it sounds. Try it on a real high end setup and it is too bad to be funny.

For compromised audio quality I can tollerate 1000Kb WMA(~300MB for a 45 minute CD), dropping any lower and it is too lossy. CDs themselves are still a bit too shallow, but 1000Kb strikes a good balance with maintaing the audio quality that is there without taking up as much space as ripping them raw. I haven't seen any good solutions for DVD audio yet though unfortunately.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I got tired of worrying about using the right encoder and bitrate, so I switched to lossless FLAC. Sure it's 300 MB per CD, but I can relax knowing it really is 100% CD quality. EAC + FLAC = peace of mind plus the ability to re-encode to any other format (like AAC if I get an ipod) with direct-from-the-CD quality.

A 160GB drive holding about 510 CDs is only about $100 now, a bit less expensive than when I did it last year.

You could also just use FLAC for the classical, where subtlety and dynamics are much more important than in rock / pop.


BenSkywalker you can read about FLAC at www.hydrogenaudio.org it's a specialized lossless audio compression (like a zip for audio) that averages under 900 kbps for exact reproduction of the extracted CD audio data.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

The only real tests I've seen showed that audiophile guys (on audiophile equipment) couldn't tell the difference between 256k mp3 and the source (cd probably) in a blind test.

BenSkywalker: If you want lossless or near-lossless audio, why don't you just use a dedicated format like flac instead of using wma at ridiculous bitrates?

MichaelD: You recorded all other music at 256, this one at 320, and you're comparing *that*? Why don't you encode the *same* cd at 256 and 320 and judge that (in a blind test)? Anything less is just anecdotal evidence.

 

[BigPoppa]

I just rip all my CDs at 320kbps VBR alt-preset-extreme with Lame using CDex. Sound damn good to me for the space savings. Definately won't say they're CD quality.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Dave

BenSkywalker you can read about FLAC at www.hydrogenaudio.org it's a specialized lossless audio compression (like a zip for audio) that averages under 900 kbps for exact reproduction of the extracted CD audio data.

I have their forums open in another window, I'm not finding about how you get support for different media players outside of the 'alternative' ones though. How do you get it to work in WMP? I'm mainly browsing the Lossless quality forum, a lot of the people there are using WMA Lossless which is what I'm using currently, looking for a discussion on the advantages of using FLAC over WMA-L.

BingBong-

The only real tests I've seen showed that audiophile guys (on audiophile equipment) couldn't tell the difference between 256k mp3 and the source (cd probably) in a blind test.

Wal-Mart caliber audiophile gear Seriously thoug, I'd be interested in seeing that test. My wife had no problem telling the difference between 320Kb MP3 and WMA-L, and she certainly isn't an audiophile.

BenSkywalker: If you want lossless or near-lossless audio, why don't you just use a dedicated format like flac instead of using wma at ridiculous bitrates?

Looking at it now, trying to find out how to get it to playback, although the file size advantage seems marginal over what I'm using now.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Wal-Mart caliber audiophile gear Seriously thoug, I'd be interested in seeing that test.

It's been forever since I read it, I'm pretty sure it was on r3mix.net, which doesn't seem to exist anymore.

But really it's pretty simple to do your own test. Encode a song into whatever different codecs/bitrates you want to compare, load them all up in whatever mp3 player software you use, turn random on, look away from the computer (or just obscure any indication onscreen of what filename/bitrate is playing), and start playing through them, and compare your opinion of how it sounds to what the encoding settings actually were. I honestly don't know how people can waste hours of time and possibly gigs of space messing with re-ripping/encoding to different formats without actually doing an objective test of the quality of the formats.

Personally, I stick to 192k or higher cbr mp3s or vbr mp3s around that same area or higher. I've never done much comparison myself, but I do know that I can spot a 128 mp3 in my (not factory, but not high end either) car stereo. Anything higher than that I'm pretty oblivious to. I don't have the money to spend on expensive audio stuff nor do I feel like spending the time to deal with finding higher bitrate mp3s or ripping cds over and over.

My wife had no problem telling the difference between 320Kb MP3 and WMA-L, and she certainly isn't an audiophile.

A blind test?

BenSkywalker: If you want lossless or near-lossless audio, why don't you just use a dedicated format like flac instead of using wma at ridiculous bitrates?

Looking at it now, trying to find out how to get it to playback, although the file size advantage seems marginal over what I'm using now.

You said yourself that wma is still inferior to the original source, no matter how high of a bitrate you use. flac is lossless and will be identical to the digital source it came from. There are many other lossless formats as well. And if you really want to save space and use a lossy format, use the one that actually sounds the best

 

[MichaelD]

Oh crap; I threw the chair in the crowded bar. :Q

OK...here goes.

Right now, I'm on a 90-day business trip. I have my gaming rig with me. Yes, I am pitiful...laptops suck..If I'm gone for any length of time, I bring my desktop with me!.

I have my ripped at 256 CBR CD collection on my storage array. I am never at a loss for tunes. I am playing it thru a nice but cheap 2.1 system.

That said; at home I have a Denon 3803/Axiom M22-VP150-QS-8/SVS PB2-Plus, HT/stereo rig. Not audiophile quality by any means, but absolutely a few steps up from B&M type gear. I have a Sony 300-CD carousel changer hooked via optical input. I know what good sound is supposed to sound like!

Granted...listening to XYZ-bitrate thru these crappy speakers on my PC (onboard NF2 sound) might not be a definitive scientific test, but I can really hear a difference.

I am not qualified nor prepared to debate anyone about the FLAC vs. The Wack vs. The Starship by Chuckles encoder....I just like the MUSIC, guys.

I guess that the only thing that is perfect, aside from the original CD itself is a raw, ripped .wav file. Approx 50MB for a 5-minute song. No loss there, guys. But IMO, the entire point of ripping/encoding to MP3 is to save space while maintaining as close to original sound quality as possible.

If you're completely obsessed with "quality" then you shouldn't be ripping at all!

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I guess that the only thing that is perfect, aside from the original CD itself is a raw, ripped .wav file. Approx 50MB for a 5-minute song. No loss there, guys. But IMO, the entire point of ripping/encoding to MP3 is to save space while maintaining as close to original sound quality as possible.

As mentioned above, there are plenty of lossless codecs for music which will sound identical to a ripped wav or the cd itself, flac being the most popular. mp3 is good for compatability, but ogg sounds better, and is smaller. (I use mp3 myself, FWIW)

 

[MichaelD]

Thanks, BBWF (you gotta shorten that username...) I've heard about OGG and FLAC before...never looked into them, though. I know that OGG has some compatibility issues...FLAC, I've only "heard" about. I like the compatibility.

I'm going to be buying the Rio...crap...the new 256Mb MP3 player....not the Cali...the..."....." I can't remember the name!! It's green, round and comes with an armband....anyway, i'm getting that next payday. I already have all the music I need/want pre-ripped to MP3.

 

[Nebor]

I use WMA Lossless. Even high bit rate Mp3s don't sound good in comparison. The clarity of DVD-A is really amazing, although most DVD-As are in 96khz 6 channel format, rather than 192khz 2 channel format, so nice surround speakers will provide a better experience than headphones. I've also found that only classical music seems to really benefit from the added dynamic range of the DVD-A format. A Shania Twain DVD-A I purchased was somwhat dissappointing, while the surround effect was nice, the quality over the CD really wasn't noticable.

I use an Audigy 2, Creative Gigaworks, Sennheiser HD600s, Bose Triports, and Sennheiser RS-85s.

 

[glugglug]

For extremely dynamic classical music you are probably a lot better off using a variable bitrate encoding like Ogg Vorbis, rather than a constant bitrate MP3.

 

[Sid59]

Blind Test and ABX .. then you'll truly know.

 

[drag]

For best digital quality use FLAC. Otherwise Ogg > mp3 if you need small files and good quality. I have my music encoded at the Ogg equivilant of ~192bitrate. I would of done bigger or used FLAC, but I also want to stream music over the internet via multicasting eventually.

Other then that, stay away from propriatory stuff like wma if you can help it. Most everything supports mp3, and open source nature of Flac and Ogg means that a suprising large number of programs support it. (I think that even UT2003 uses Ogg.) Then you know that no matter what platform, be it linux, amiga, os x or any other weird thing you can think of you will always find something that works. The exception is those itunes-type devices. But some of the nicer ones support Ogg if you shop around you can find one, but normally for that mp3 is the ticket.

But for most of your stuff it's pointless to convert from lossy to lossy format, like it's a bad idea to convert mp3's to Ogg and visa versa. Then you just get the worse of both formats.

 

[mryellow2]

For the CD vs 256kb/s(lame encoding) blind sound test I believe they used the Sennheiser Orpheus.

 

[Jeff7]

What about Lame 3.95.1? New version...maybe it'll do better.

 

[JackBurton]

Man, I encode my music at 192Kbps and I can't tell the difference between that and my CD.

 

[ntrights]

Ive done a blind test between 192 and 320 i could here the diffrence its subtle but its there..havent tested 256 vs 320

 

[BenSkywalker]

BBWF-

A blind test?

Actually it wasn't set up as a test. I had Evanescene's Fallen CD ripped to 320Kb and WMA-L and had a playlist set up as both named the same. My wife was listening to one of them and told me something was wrong that everything sounded muddled. I went over and she was playing the lower Kb rip, I switched it to WMA-L and she said that's better.

Michael-

I guess that the only thing that is perfect, aside from the original CD itself is a raw, ripped .wav file.

Until you hear DVD-A, then CDs don't sound so perfect anymore

drag-

Other then that, stay away from propriatory stuff like wma if you can help it.

Why? I'm open to try something better if it exists, but I'm not going to use an inferior product just because its open source.

Then you know that no matter what platform, be it linux, amiga, os x or any other weird thing you can think of you will always find something that works.

Is that the only reason?

But for most of your stuff it's pointless to convert from lossy to lossy format, like it's a bad idea to convert mp3's to Ogg and visa versa. Then you just get the worse of both formats.

Absolutely agree. It only takes a couple of minutes to rip a CD, just rerip if you want to try different formats.

 

[Nebor]

Wow Ben, your wife is an audiophile!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Other then that, stay away from propriatory stuff like wma if you can help it.

Why? I'm open to try something better if it exists, but I'm not going to use an inferior product just because its open source.

Then you know that no matter what platform, be it linux, amiga, os x or any other weird thing you can think of you will always find something that works.

Is that the only reason?

Ogg is definately better then mp3. Mp3 is older technology while Ogg has a up to date design and implimentation based on more advanced understanding of how the human ear works. blah blah blah. er.

Both at high bitrates your not going to be noticing the difference between Ogg and mp3, but as the files become more and more heavily compressed the differences between the formats become greater and greater.

Flac and wma are both lossless formats so sound quality isn't a issue. Maybe the different sizes of files? But I am going to bet that flac has much wider acceptence then wma,(at least for decent quality programs to encode/rip/play/stream that don't involve big licensing costs or warez) it's a fairly popular codec.

Both flac and ogg are very flexable and will be used to package audio with video in streams and such.

For me open source is a big ++. It means that more programs can use flac, more operating systems can use it. Why volenteer to restrict the ability to play media files if you can help it?

see here for Ogg FAQ
see here for Flac FAQ

 

[BenSkywalker]

Wow Ben, your wife is an audiophile!

I'm working on it I was trying to talk her into to getting a decent audio setup for quite a while and she finally agreed, but was of the 'it's a waste of money' mindset still. I took her with me to the local specialty shop and she started to come around though, the more time I get her to spend listening to music on a decent setup the more irritated she gets with the general consumer grade sound quality.

drag-

Both at high bitrates your not going to be noticing the difference between Ogg and mp3, but as the files become more and more heavily compressed the differences between the formats become greater and greater.

So ogg is crap(MP3 levels of sound quality), good to know.

Flac and wma are both lossless formats so sound quality isn't a issue. Maybe the different sizes of files? But I am going to bet that flac has much wider acceptence then wma,(at least for decent quality programs to encode/rip/play/stream that don't involve big licensing costs or warez) it's a fairly popular codec.

I have two set top DVD players that play WMA along with my XBox, although if I want to use them I just use the source CD anyway(except ripped soundtracks to my XBox harddrive). ~300MB is what I end up with using WMA-L to rip a CD which I'm seeing is about the same as flac, I don't see a reason to swap.

For me open source is a big ++. It means that more programs can use flac, more operating systems can use it. Why volenteer to restrict the ability to play media files if you can help it?

Don't want to turn this thread into a war over open source, but I'll just say I would rather hit myself in the genitals repeatedly then go back to using Linux or OpenOffice. Even under Windows, if I can't get them to run under Window's Media Player I'm not interested. I have spent considerable time with the alternatives, but I don't want to turn this thread off subject so I'll leave it at that.