MP3 Question: 128kbps vs. 256kbps

[J_UNTITLED]

Between the audio quality of 128kbps versus 256kbps, does the 256kbps truly sound better?

[sj001]

Definitely, CD-quality is 192Kbps... so you will definitely hear a difference.

[Toony]

Originally Posted by sj001

Definitely, CD-quality is 192Kbps... so you will definitely hear a difference.

320Kbps is closer to CD.

[sj001]

Wow, actually 1,411.2 kbit/s is true uncompressed CD quality... but 320kbps is the highest bit-rate you can encode an MP3 at.

[J_UNTITLED]

Just was curious as there seems to be a wide arrange of different opinions on this which makes it a bit frustrating.

[sj001]

To be honest, if you encode at about 256kbps, I personally couldn't hear a difference between that and anything higher.

[theknub]

i never encode anything below 320 personally. the difference is very noticeable

[xtop]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Just was curious as there seems to be a wide arrange of different opinions on this which makes it a bit frustrating.

listening through headphones, you probably wont hear much of a difference. hook it up to any decent stereo and there's a very noticeable difference

[The Guardian]

Originally Posted by sj001

Definitely, CD-quality is 192Kbps... so you will definitely hear a difference.

Try listening to any MP3 off a good quality recording, even if it's ripped at 320kbps. After a couple of months pop the original CD back in and listen to that. You'll definitely hear the difference. I did, was amazed (and saddened that I had been listening to crap) and redid all my MP3s.

I now rip everything with FLAC... it's a good option for Windows users who don't want to use WMA files (which also support lossless). Winamp also now has built-in support for it which is nice.

[HDTV1080P]

I do not like MP3 and I do not use it. I listen to all my music on the original PCM quality of CD. Now Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio formats sound much better.

[WickyWoo]

FLAC is good yes

[The Guardian]

I'm slightly surprised Microsoft's HDCD didn't catch on... fully backwards compatible, it played as a normal 16-bit CD in an older CD player but it played as 20-bit audio in a HDCD player... My only guess is that Microsoft wanted too much for royalties.

[blindcat87]

I don't think bitrate is the only factor. I now only use Lame to encode my MP3s, I use VBR to save space, I don't remember the command line setting, but it is the equivalent of the old alt preset standard. All of my MP3s were previously ripped at 320 kbps with a Sheen encoder. The Lame encoded tracks sound signifigantly better and I actually save a lot of space.

I rip all of my CDs using EAC and double rip them all to FLAC for archival and potential streaming (even the best MP3s sound bad on my HT system, so lossless is the only option for streaming) purposes, and to MP3 using Lame for my portable player. I can tell the difference between the lossy and lossless even on my cheap PC speakers, but the VBR sounds good enough over headphones to work for anything but critical listening. I have very sensitive hearing, big surprise, and think that Lame encoded VBR is the way to go unless you have enough capacity on your device for lossless to be practical.

Chris

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Between the audio quality of 128kbps versus 256kbps, does the 256kbps truly sound better?

[The Guardian]

There's a free program called CDEX you can do a quick google search for, which gives you a graphical interface for using LAME (which you still have to download separately).

[crackinhedz]

I always download/rip at 192 or higher...128 muffles the dynamic range a bit to much for me...not saying it doesnt sound good, just not crisp enough. Sort of like playing a song over the radio vs. cd

[J_UNTITLED]

Anyone else have any particular opinions on this?

[vw mofo]

192k or higher. Anything less sounds like pooh through a strainer.

[Galley]

From my testing, 192Kbps VBR AAC is the "sweet spot". I honestly can't tell the difference between it and the original CD.