Is there a noticeable difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps?

[CarlKillerMiller]

I'm purchasing music from an unnamed music service, and I'm given the option to choose one of these formats. I'm thinking that the two are really quite similar, and I don't think that cd quality is worth the extra cost.


Your opinions? I've heard stories of audio pros not being able to tell the difference between the two!

Edit:
At this site, it raises the price by about 80%. Overall, it's still cheap, but I'd rather not pay more for little reason.

 

[amol]

how much is the extra cost?

 

[vi edit]

What will be main playback means? And how picky are you?

If you'll be using it in a DAP for just listening to out and about, save the space and the money and go with 192.

If you an absolute audiosnob and are playing it back on some high end equipment, you will notice a difference in 192 and 320.

Just depends on intended use and how finicky your ears are.

Me personally, I'm plenty content with 192k.

 

[JoeKing]

The Russians thank you for your support.

 

[thomsbrain]

to tell the difference, you'd need high quality DACs (digital/analog convertors), high quality amps, and high quality headphones/speakers

 

[no0b]

<< an unnamed music service,>>

...allofmp3

 

[0roo0roo]

the extra bits will help u feel better about the purchase. u will feel a certain emptiness every time u play the 192....wondering what could have been...

 

[Howard]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1405519

 

[bondboy]

320 kbps is really the minimum you need. And even then it's not quite "CD" quality.
If it costs 80% more, just buy the CD from a store.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
to tell the difference, you'd need high quality DACs (digital/analog convertors), high quality amps, and high quality headphones/speakers

What he said. Better sound systems will take advantage of higher bit rates, particularly if you get a straight digital signal to your speakers.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

I'm just going to be playing this out of computer speakers and a pair of headphones with my mp3 player (Sennheiser middle-low end)

 

[mobobuff]

It depends on the song. 320 can usually be a lot clearer and sharper with higher notes, or high vocals. Especially if you're using decent headphones.

 

[Jeff7181]

I notice a difference between my 192k MP3 and variable bitrate at 100% quality MP3's that I've ripped myself on my Logitech Z640's and my Zen NX with the supplied ear plug things.

 

[Pepsi90919]

lol "unnamed"

you mean Allofmp3

 

[piroroadkill]

Originally posted by: JoeKing
The Russians thank you for your support.

That was my first thought.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Chraticn

Your opinions? I've heard stories of audio pros not being able to tell the difference between the two!

I encoded in various ways and I could tell the diffference. I gave a friend a bunch of files to make a CD with various encodes in random order and a .wav and listened on my home stereo to rank them by quality. I was right up until 320 and lame on the highest vbr setting.

I use LAME at highest VBR, and another CD was made with 2 copes of 6 songs one copy mp3 VBR and one copy WAV. I was about 60/40 on guessing which was which, so I guess that's good enough for me to say I can't tell a difference between those two.

I suggest you buy the 192 and 320 of a song you already have on CD, make 3 .wav files and make your own evaluation. Preferrably, give the files to a friend and have him burn 2 copies of each on a CD (in random order). Then see if you can properly identify all 6 songs. If you can't seperate 192 and 320, or can live with the differences, then there's no reason to pay the extra cost.

This is one case where you really can't take someone else's opinion on what to do. Nobody listens to anything through your ears.