TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

I got myself new headphones (ATH-M50) and decided to check if i finally could hear the difference between a 192 kbs file and a 320 but i really cant. I rip all my music from cds in 192 kbs to save space. Is it just me who cant hear any difference or anyone else? What is the difference really?

Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by trancedanne I got myself new headphones (ATH-M50) and decided to check if i finally could hear the difference between a 192 kbs file and a 320 but i really cant. I rip all my music from cds in 192 kbs to save space. Is it just me who cant hear any difference or anyone else? What is the difference really?

Is definitely you. There is a relevant difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps, just like there is a difference between 320 kbps and wav.

i think what sticks out most to me in your sentence is your new headphones. you can't possibly know all the little subtitles of your new headphones to make educated remarks on audio fidelity. It's taken me almost 4yrs to really KNOW my studio speakers, and i think only recently can i say with confidence that. I would work in the highest format you can and if you're listening to those CD's as reference material for tracks then make sure you take that into account

Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by TranceElevation just like there is a difference between 320 kbps and wav.

Not a perceptible difference. Some people with hyperacusis can just barely hear a difference at 256 kbps, but a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range.

Even 192 kbps is imperceptible in most cases because the quality loss from the listening equipment itself overshadows any quality loss from the compression.

Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range.

Ah the old 'how good is 320k' debate...

The long and the short of it is that it depends on the input material. MP3 is a very complicated kind of encoding and you can't just judge it by comparing the frequency content of one recording before and after compression (which is what a lot of people base their "it's shit" arguments on). MP3 is designed to focus on removing frequencies our hearing isn't as sensitive to, so when that and things like frequency masking come into play, you could potentially have an MP3 with a frequency spectrum which looks terrible, but which sounds exactly like the original to the human ear.

Some sounds compress better than others in MP3, so if you're using a constant bit rate of 320k there will naturally be bits which compress without anyone being able to distinguish the difference, bits which everyone can distinguish and bits in between where some people will be able to tell and others won't. And similarly entire songs which fit into each of those categories.

Even if it did degrade every recording by the same amount, there are so many ways in which a signal can be distorted: frequency response, non-linearity, harmonics, additive noise, phase distortion... and the sensitivity of human hearing to some of these aren't very well known.


To most people, most 320k mp3s sound as good as WAVs on most audio systems. That's about the most accurate anyone can be, without giving specific examples.


Some researchers say that a surprisingly large proportion of young people are more likely to say they prefer the sound of an MP3 to a WAV: so much exposure to the format has resulted in teenagers learning to find the 'sizzle' (which we'd call digital distortion) desirable. So you could argue that MP3 is actually better than WAV because it introduces that 'improvement'... but please don't.



All of the above applies to 192k as well, so a few tracks might be indistinguishable from 320k, but most will be noticeable to a trained ear. For that I'd say "to a lot of people, a lot of 192k mp3s sound as good as 320k mp3s on a lot of audio systems"... I'd guess in this case "a lot" is probably more than 50%, but I haven't got any data to back that up, it's just a gut feeling.

Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Not a perceptible difference. Some people with hyperacusis can just barely hear a difference at 256 kbps, but a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range. Even 192 kbps is imperceptible in most cases because the quality loss from the listening equipment itself overshadows any quality loss from the compression.

I can hear the difference between a 256 and 320k file on crappy consumer headphones without any problem (though to be fair, a lot of that probably comes from crappy compression methods than anything else). 320k and WAV, though, is stretching it. I tend to rip my stuff in FLAC, just so that if I ever happen to magically be able to tell the difference (or get decent monitors), I have to option to start using WAV.

Also, the difference between even 192 and 320k might be imperceptible if you've just been listening to low quality music long enough; I have a friend who guarantees me that everything in his music library is high quality stuff, but it's all in 192k that sounds like it's a lower-quality upscale.

Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by TranceElevation Is definitely you

I'd be willing to bet money that 9 times out of 10 you can't tell the difference either, regardless of what your ego wants you to think

My e-peen is bigger than yours.

Oh wait... N/m

If the files are encoded properly then there is fuck all difference imo

Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by Kysora I'd be willing to bet money that 9 times out of 10 you can't tell the difference either, regardless of what your ego wants you to think

Now is clear why your mixes/music is/are so awful.

i can def hear the difference between a wav and 320 kbps. It has to be my own track tho.

the problem isnt really the mp3 convertion. the problem is with 16bit. if you compare a 24bit track with a 16bit track you will hear difference! of course depended on the track but it doesnt even have to be that awesome produced to hear the difference imo. wav is a bad standard today when we have almost unlimited megabytes at low cost. but we are lucky, it was originally planned to be 14bit. in most cases i cant hear difference between 320 and wav, but i can on 192 and i can between wav and 24bit wave.

Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Not a perceptible difference. Some people with hyperacusis can just barely hear a difference at 256 kbps, but a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range. Even 192 kbps is imperceptible in most cases because the quality loss from the listening equipment itself overshadows any quality loss from the compression.

I must have hyperacusis then...

well i've just noticed that a track i've on my ipod is 128kbps, i just thought isn't very well mixed but never imagined that it was 128k

Re: Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by Atlantis-AR I must have hyperacusis then...

Extremely doubtful - you certainly would know about it and have been diagnosed, as many frequencies are painful or at least are perceived to be far louder than others. It's extremely unlikely you could have a job related to music with that condition.

Honestly, unless you're monitoring on simply amazing equipment and have very well produced, mixed and engieered material to A/B against, it's really very difficult for even professionals to tell the difference between well encoded 320 and wav. Not saying you can't, but very difficult.

As for 192 vs 320 - hell yes (let alone 128). I can do it with about 80% accuracy (with all the conditions above).

Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Not a perceptible difference. Some people with hyperacusis can just barely hear a difference at 256 kbps, but a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range. Even 192 kbps is imperceptible in most cases because the quality loss from the listening equipment itself overshadows any quality loss from the compression.

That's nice, I once had the difference proven to me.

I had two versions of a set, one 320kbps and one flac, one time I accidentally opened the 320kbps version and 20 seconds in or so I thought it sounded a bit flat and thought maybe I opened the mp3 version, then I opened the flac one instead and it sounded fine.

I'd say, 192 to 320 is a 30% upgrade, but 320 to lossless is about a 10% upgrade (for well mastered music, for badly mastered mid 90s goa the difference for lossless is much larger). However sometimes when I'm really tired I actually don't like listening to non lossless music, I'll listen to albums I like less than others but have on cd.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter That's nice, I once had the difference proven to me. I had two versions of a set, one 320kbps and one flac, one time I accidentally opened the 320kbps version and 20 seconds in or so I thought it sounded a bit flat and thought maybe I opened the mp3 version, then I opened the flac one instead and it sounded fine.

This is what you call "proof"?

Evidence (not proof) is a series of positive ABX tests done under controlled conditions on standardized equipment. You've given us an anecdote based on 20 seconds of listening and a vague emotion. That's about as far from "proof" as there is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Extremely doubtful - you certainly would know about it and have been diagnosed, as many frequencies are painful or at least are perceived to be far louder than others. It's extremely unlikely you could have a job related to music with that condition.

Oh, I didn't even know what it meant.

I've always thought there was a huge difference between 192 and 320, which is why I'm so surprised to see people bring up 320 vs 192 questions... maybe I have really acute hearing?

I use Sennheiser HD 650's, btw, and have a headphone amp (no idea which one, my brother is the producer) and a Virus TI (all I know is that it's got a sound card, maybe that influences the sound I hear...lol?).

But really, then I hear there's people who can't tell between 128 and 320 but that's like an entirely different universe for me.

128 sounds shit. its like removing the color blue from your vision.

quote:

Originally posted by clay 128 sounds shit. its like removing the color blue from your vision.

QFT.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.