• 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.

MP3 test part 2 - this time with better compaisons!!

Shawn

Shawn

Lifer


It's an sample of Staind's song Yesterday (cd version, unedited). So probably NSFW. I thought it would be a good song to compare. I saved the lower quality song as a 128 then back to 192.

Edit: The 192 was sample one.
 
they are both showing up as 192!!


you know someone was/is going to say it. figured id get it out of the way early on.
 
Originally posted by: mwtgg
128 vs 192? C'mon. I can't tell the difference between 128 and 320.
Click to expand...

I didn't feel like reripping the song to 320. I can tell the difference between the two.
 
Originally posted by: Supercharged
Originally posted by: anxi80
they are both showing up as 192!!


you know someone was/is going to say it. figured id get it out of the way early on.
Click to expand...
try reading
Click to expand...
oh the irony.

edit: if that was a broad statement directed to whoever seriously makes that 'they are both 192'-comment, then i retract my irony comment.
 
Originally posted by: Supercharged
Originally posted by: mwtgg
128 vs 192? C'mon. I can't tell the difference between 128 and 320.
Click to expand...

I didn't feel like reripping the song to 320. I can tell the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Thank God I am not anal enough to care, or notice for that matter. 🙂

I rip all my cds to 192.
 
You do realize that just about any mp3 player in the world will show the bitrate as its playing, right?

That being said the 192 sounds better, but only by a very little bit. If you cant tell the difference between them, its not your ears, its not the fact that there is no difference...you just need better speakers. 128kbps sounds great, but 192 is perfect.

Edit: Cute 🙂
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
You do realize that just about any mp3 player in the world will show the bitrate as its playing, right?

That being said the 192 sounds better, but only by a very little bit. If you cant tell the difference between them, its not your ears, its not the fact that there is no difference...you just need better speakers. 128kbps sounds great, but 192 is perfect.

Edit: Cute 🙂
Click to expand...

actually 1411 kbps is perfect.
 
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: BD2003
You do realize that just about any mp3 player in the world will show the bitrate as its playing, right?

That being said the 192 sounds better, but only by a very little bit. If you cant tell the difference between them, its not your ears, its not the fact that there is no difference...you just need better speakers. 128kbps sounds great, but 192 is perfect.

Edit: Cute 🙂
Click to expand...

actually 1411 kbps is perfect.
Click to expand...

And takes up WAY too much space.
 
Originally posted by: anxi80
Originally posted by: Supercharged
Originally posted by: anxi80
they are both showing up as 192!!


you know someone was/is going to say it. figured id get it out of the way early on.
Click to expand...
try reading
Click to expand...
oh the irony.

edit: if that was a broad statement directed to whoever seriously makes that 'they are both 192'-comment, then i retract my irony comment.
Click to expand...

heh, I didn't realise you were being sarcastic. But yea, that's for anyone who doesn't read the damn post. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Supercharged
heh, I didn't realise you were being sarcastic. But yea, that's for anyone who doesn't read the damn post. 😛
Click to expand...
😀 i should really establish myself as a sarcastic person more often, so these kind of mix-ups are avoided. but yes, i feel that response is an appropriate one.
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: BD2003
You do realize that just about any mp3 player in the world will show the bitrate as its playing, right?

That being said the 192 sounds better, but only by a very little bit. If you cant tell the difference between them, its not your ears, its not the fact that there is no difference...you just need better speakers. 128kbps sounds great, but 192 is perfect.

Edit: Cute 🙂
Click to expand...

actually 1411 kbps is perfect.
Click to expand...

And takes up WAY too much space.
Click to expand...

so use lossless WMA or APE or something. my entire CD collection takes up only 68 GB.
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: BD2003
You do realize that just about any mp3 player in the world will show the bitrate as its playing, right?

That being said the 192 sounds better, but only by a very little bit. If you cant tell the difference between them, its not your ears, its not the fact that there is no difference...you just need better speakers. 128kbps sounds great, but 192 is perfect.

Edit: Cute 🙂
Click to expand...

actually 1411 kbps is perfect.
Click to expand...

And takes up WAY too much space.
Click to expand...

does that REALLY matter when 250gb hdds go for $60 AR and dvdrs cost next to nothing? i guess lower quality music is the price you have to pay for getting yourself low bang-for-buck LCDs 😛

but 192 is perfect.
Click to expand...
for speakers maybe, not for headphones. its not something you have to sit down and concentrate to tell. you can definitely feel it listening to it for few minutes. for one, i am not a type that listens to music to detect differences. music is something you enjoy, not analyze 😎
 
i had to break out the headphones cause the speakers werent doing me good. i voted for sample 1. i dunno...i can hear clearer separation in the instruments. lets get some more votes and then see what the true answer is. Im curious to know the answer.
 
Hmm, the guitar in the end shows why listening to CDs sounds better than mp3. But I would say 2 is the 192.

Just put in a spoiler alert in a later post and post the results 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Supercharged
Originally posted by: parody
you posted a staind song. for an audio comparison.

my god you guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Click to expand...


seriously, do you even have ears?

great sample choice...it's not like you picked blown-out, poorly engineered, overcompressed big studio crap or anything.

the first thread on this had not the greatest samples to use. but this is just sad.

 
Who cares? Using a solid VBR compression algorithm can produce mp3's that sound identical to CDs. Why waste time with CBR 128 or 192?
 
Originally posted by: parody
Originally posted by: Supercharged
Originally posted by: parody
you posted a staind song. for an audio comparison.

my god you guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Click to expand...


seriously, do you even have ears?

great sample choice...it's not like you picked blown-out, poorly engineered, overcompressed big studio crap or anything.

the first thread on this had not the greatest samples to use. but this is just sad.
Click to expand...

What's the matter? Daddy didn't love you? :brokenheart:
 
Well, the 192 certainly sounds better (subtly) than the 128, but I agree with daniel, why use CBR? I encode everything to VBR and it sounds better without sending the file size skyward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top