128kbps vs 320kbps

T

The_Techie

Resident Techie
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
11,242
Reaction score
84
Location
Netherlands
Has anybody experienced any noticeable difference between the two when comparing MP3 bitrate (other than the file size) in terms of quality? I have fairly cheap speakers (Creative T6060) and I can't really notice a difference between the two...
 
I can't either...
Infact, I encoded all my music to 128kbps becasue I can't notice. I also get more hard drive space and better battery life on my mp3 players
 
If I remember correctly then 128kbps is said to be the tipping point. One can still hear its 128kbps with certain sound patterns. Anything over 128kbps becomes indistinguishable from each other.

You'd also have to consider whether its VBR or CBR or whatever.
 
Correct. There is quite a difference in the sound, mostly at the extremes (or so I've noticed). The bitrate is exactly that... the rate at which bits are read. Higher bitrates means more information in the data. i.e. with 128kbps you have less information in 1 second of audio than with 320kbps. You can take this any way you want. The human ear can apparently only hear a certain number of sounds at once ANYway (that, by the way, is the whole idea behind MP3 encoding). So dropping some sounds that occur at the same time in some audio has almost no effect (in most situations). You will notice a difference when echo and the like come into play. That's also why you can hear more of a difference at higher volumes (more powerful sound bounces around the room more).

:)
 
I don't go as low as 128kb, I can definitely hear the difference between that and 320, or even 192.

I'd try to get everything to at least 160kb, probably 192 or VBR preferably.
 
agreed, 192 is normally what i encode at.
 
Anything less than 128 will be noticeable, but anything above 160 will not with an average human ear with a certain amount of wax
 
I use 320 you can most definatly here the difference when you play at clubs with decent sound systems. I don't use VBR because some CD players just refuse to play it.
 
Basically:

Yes, there is a minute difference. A small difference with a good sound setup but alas not all of us can afford it.

So, its negligable
 
128 or 192, ..128 can be perfectly awesome with the right programs.
 
MrE said:
128 or 192, ..128 can be perfectly awesome with the right programs.
Click to expand...

Ja, it does also depend on the encoding. You get some very good 128kb rips.

However it really is noticeable on just a good 2.1 set compared to 320. I mostly notice that the bass suffers. 128 still sounds fine, it just can be better.
 
I notice a distinct difference between 128 and say 192 VBR. As mentioned, high treble seems distorted at 128, but less so at 192. On my setup at home, you can hear the difference between even 192 VBR and the original CD. I have re-ripped all my discs to 192 VBR AAC now, and I'm finally happy. Disk space is cheap these days, so I don't skimp in quality.

Besides, when you are unhappy with quality, just re-rip. You do have the original cd's for your tunes right? :p
 
Last edited:
Which encoders do you guys use? I used to use LAME for mp3, now I'm using the free Nero aac encoder.
 
Gunny said:
I use 320 you can most definatly here the difference when you play at clubs with decent sound systems. I don't use VBR because some CD players just refuse to play it.
Click to expand...

Very true..the difference is quite big...at least if you have a "music ear".VBR i really don't hear the difference and quite frankly i don't care...as Gunny pointed out why.
 
Keep all of mine between 192/256Kbs I use LAME or just plane Mp3 :) over 256k it starts to get too large.
 
Gunny said:
I use 320 you can most definatly here the difference when you play at clubs with decent sound systems.
Click to expand...

Same here, If you have a good surround speaker setup use a program like AC3filter and WMP to play a mp3 encoded at less than 320 and you'll notice the distortion when you use the "surround" and "voice" mixer.

Even 320 Kbps is not good enough if you want to separate the channels of an encoded track for a proper surround system, flac or any lossless format is the best for this.
 
Guess it's a case of how will you listen to it?
If it's in 5.1/7.1+ setup's then you probably will have to go with a higher kbs stream, if you just have some 2.1's or headphones then 192/256 is okay!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X