coldfreedom
Banned
192bit sound vs. 320bit sound... can we tell the difference?
is it noticible? how huge is the gap?
is it noticible? how huge is the gap?
192bit vs. 320bit... can we tell the difference?
- Thread starter coldfreedom
- Start date
Rastalovich
New member
Ur really talking about rates required for master copies and cd quality. (think cd is 192, either that or something just above 128)
Radio quality editing is only set to something around 240, but that`s not necessarily for the music, but for quality of the voices for tx and for mixing purposes.
Music wize, there aren`t many amplification units (speakers etc) that will output such a high rate that I`m aware of.
Can u tell the difference ? Well if ur fortunate to have a setup that will output stuff at the qualities, it would depend on what the sound is, but as u get older u don`t pick up the differences. By older I mean from about 19+ ur hearing deteriorates in terms of picking up subtlties, extremely slowly, but still.
Radio quality editing is only set to something around 240, but that`s not necessarily for the music, but for quality of the voices for tx and for mixing purposes.
Music wize, there aren`t many amplification units (speakers etc) that will output such a high rate that I`m aware of.
Can u tell the difference ? Well if ur fortunate to have a setup that will output stuff at the qualities, it would depend on what the sound is, but as u get older u don`t pick up the differences. By older I mean from about 19+ ur hearing deteriorates in terms of picking up subtlties, extremely slowly, but still.
Mr. Smith
New member
Read this and the linked articles... http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/
mp3 = crap, NOT CD quality at all
mp3 = crap, NOT CD quality at all
Rastalovich
New member
name='Mr. Smith' said:
Yeah 128 is meant to be cd quality.
The likes of the sterophile people with their graphs of tones to express the differences in qualities are a bit ott tbh.
In terms of making a comparison to the original, sure u can overlay one graph over the other and pick out the noise differences. But it terms of file size vS bitrate vS the human ear vS equipment played on vS frequency of the ear->brain - imo it`s an irrelevence. (unless u have 500Tb music players, then u can argue).
If u stood in a studio, listening to a 320 or 192+ bitrate mp3 I would seriously challenge any1 to `notice` the difference with an uncompressed format. Graphically it stands out like a sore thumb tho.
In broadcasting it`s a different story, as u don`t want to deal in levels or degrees of noise or loss at any point. Especially not in the digital age. Think they still widely use mpeg level 2, not 100% on that.
Thanks to Rastalovich & Mr. Smith for the interesting replies. I was only being a bit facetious in my post because I am well over 19 so I really cant hear the differences. I now realize though that when burning a cd there is actually little point in my using anything over 192 and 128 would probably be adequate so I might as well save the space to fit more tracks on!
Zoot
Active member
I have always found 128kbps at a sample rate of 44.1kHz fine for pretty much everything, including my home recording audio work. My X-Fi will allow me to upsample to 96kHz, but since I can only detect frequencies up to 18kHz that kind of a sample rate is pointless.
(I had fun with an old radio speaker connected to an Electrical function generator in my college once lol.
)
Mp3 is just one of many lossy compression systems that takes advantage of the human limitations. Essentially all the higher and lower frequencies are filtered out.
If the bit rate and sample rate are set high enough it's only a trained ear that'll actually notice a coherent difference.
Anyway just thought I'd add that.
(I had fun with an old radio speaker connected to an Electrical function generator in my college once lol.
)name='Mr. Smith' said:
Mp3 is just one of many lossy compression systems that takes advantage of the human limitations. Essentially all the higher and lower frequencies are filtered out.
If the bit rate and sample rate are set high enough it's only a trained ear that'll actually notice a coherent difference.
Anyway just thought I'd add that.
Rastalovich
New member
name='Zoot' said:Mp3 is just one of many lossy compression systems that takes advantage of the human limitations. Essentially all the higher and lower frequencies are filtered out.
If the bit rate and sample rate are set high enough it's only a trained ear that'll actually notice a coherent difference.
Anyway just thought I'd add that.
Overlay the stuff that`s lost over the original and it looks pretty ugly. But the point people who do that fail to realise is that u dont look at music/sound, u listen to it
