Experiences with 128kbps vs 320kbps?

[Bit8xPr0]

My friend says you can't even tell the difference. Well I haven't put time into it so GO AT IT

[MegaDave91]

The difference is significant to me, and it's not placebo either.

[EmoRarity]

Different for everyone, 256 and up I can't tell the difference with ninety percent of my music. 

[Octavialicious]

On anything but my 1540s I can't tell a difference. With my good headphones I can tell a difference, but nothing super crazy.

[SSL]

You can definitely tell the difference, particularly in the treble. Listen to a track with cymbals/hi-hat, for example and you'll immediately notice the loss in quality.

 

However, things drastically improve once you get to 192kbps. Beyond that point everything pretty much sounds the same. The obvious implication is that lossless formats are a waste of space.

[Laederem]

You probably won't notice a difference from 256 upwards. Maaybe 256 and 320, but that's doubtful. The difference in perception varies with the quality of your equipment.

If you have something pretty average, 192kbps will sound no different than 320.

The odds are that your friend doesn't have the audiyafile setup, so the difference between 192 and 320 may very well be in his head. Or he has extremely good hearing, but that's unlikely too.

[Enderman]

I don't notice a difference, but that's because I have 12.2 surround sound with totally not studio-quality speakers

I actually enjoy it more, since I don't hear all the imperfections such as high pitched noises and EMI. It sounds like a warmer tone, kind of like "hall" EQ.

Not great for high listening to price sounds, but its more than enough for gaming, music, and movies.

[shadowblitz3]

huge difference for me

[xtroria]

If you have a true lossless file then compress them to 320 kbps and 128 kbps mp3, with revealing headphone I'm pretty sure it's pretty easy to tell which one is which.

 

320kbps vs lossless FLAC though, now that's a true debate of the decade for audiophiles

[SSL]

320kbps vs lossless FLAC though, now that's a true debate of the decade for audiophiles

 

Sad, but true.

[TheProfosist]

I would go to mp4/aac not mp3. I use variable quality 0.5 which end up right around 192 give or take depending on what it think is needs for that quality. I only use that for portable usage and devices that dont support flac. 192 and 256 are noticeable improvements over 128 even with mp3. Above that though is just more bit rate and the type of compression doesn't really benefit from much more that that, especially on aac.

[SlaughterSmurf]

My friend says you can't even tell the difference. Well I haven't put time into it so GO AT IT

On low quality headphones you can't, on decent cans you can tell in the highs (Female singer, high hat, lead guitar, ect.) decent being $150+?

[Lays]

Yeah for sure, occasionally I think I notice differences from 320 to higher bitrate stuff, but I chalk it up to different masters / versions of the song.

 

(as the only time I would be listening to 320 vs higher bitrate would be going from spotify to foobar, and they may not be the same file)

[RazeG3SG1]

I can tell the difference with 128kbps and 320kbps. As for 320kbps and FLAC, I can't.

 

It is harder to get good quality 320kbps as compared to FLAC IMO. 

[creatip123]

Google 'Philips golden ears challenge', and do the quizzes there. It will really train your ears for minute details in sounds.

[SSL]

On low quality headphones you can't, on decent cans you can tell in the highs (Female singer, high hat, lead guitar, ect.) decent being $150+?

 

Not even, my shit $10 earbuds do the job.

[psychot]

128 vs 320 the difference is fairly clear, above 128 though (ie 192, 256), from my experience, its very hard to tell the difference.

[-TesseracT-]

With my poor headphones and setup, 128kbps MP3 sounds really bad. AAC at that bitrate, not sure. I still only use FLAC when I can, so that I don't have to think about whether something sounds bad.

[TW1ST3R]

Quality below 320 varies greatly.  Some 192 sounds good, but some sounds like absolute trash.  It really depends how it was encoded and the quality of the audio source.  But yes I can definitely hear a difference between 128 and 320.   Pretty sure iTunes is only 256 (or 192, I don't remember) anyway, so your average listener wouldn't even know.  I don't even know what the quality of Spotify, etc. is - I still buy CDs, because I feel like I'm getting scummed paying the same price for digital goods of lower quality - bought from iTunes once, never again.

 

The difference between FLAC and mp3 on the other hand can vary greatly - for example, the latest Arctic Monkeys album, I can barely notice a difference, but on the other hand, there is a huge difference, particularly in high-gain rock or metal and orchestral soundtracks.

 

I'm no expert, but I find that the difference in discernible audio quality also depends on the genre of the music - genres that utilise less of the audio frequency spectrum lose less quality than those that utilise more, which is probably why I can't really notice a difference with the AM album.  Similarly, lower quality audio files also tend to lose the sense of space in the music, particularly in orchestral scores.

[Lauen]

You can definitely tell the difference, particularly in the treble. Listen to a track with cymbals/hi-hat, for example and you'll immediately notice the loss in quality.

 

However, things drastically improve once you get to 192kbps. Beyond that point everything pretty much sounds the same. The obvious implication is that lossless formats are a waste of space.

This. low bitrate hihats and other cymbals make me puke.

[ShearMe]

GG my already-had-this-thread-multiple-times experience

[Clarkey]

Yes you can 100% tell the difference. If he cant its because he has shitty headphones/speakers.

 

I can tell the different between 128 and 320, 320 and Flac(usually around 900) and then PCM(1400) the difference between FLAC and PCM is a lot less noticeable than 128 vs 320 but its there.

[kameshss]

Once upon a time I was downloading 128kbps musics, thought that this is only the highest range.

But now I download 320kbps or more. And now I feel bad about the musics that I downloaded with 128kbps quality.

You really can notice the difference between this two.

[.spider.]

...Flac(usually around 900) and then PCM(1400) the difference between FLAC and PCM is a lot less noticeable than 128 vs 320 but its there.

Than is something wrong. This is impossible as long as the used flac decoder/player isn't messing up something.

[pierrelucsav]

The clarity loss in the treble is significant at 128 kbps for almost every single song. At 192+ however, I don't think I can hear a difference in the vast majority of genres.