Jump to content
TwistedLefty

Can you tell the Diff?

Can you tell the Diff?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Can you tell the Diff?

    • 128 is fine for me
    • 192 works
    • 320 or nothing (i'm just funny that way)
    • what's a kilobit ?


Recommended Posts

49 in july and i think my trained ears can actually hear a difference.

not so much in a car or with a portable but with a nice system or headphones i think 192 is the minimum i would want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karcey    42

I'm 59

All the tracks sounded OK

Looks like I don't have to spend money on a high priced guitar ... I'd never hear the quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stratrat    0

44.

I've never considered myself an audiophile, and don't have a high-end sound system or high-$$$ headphones/studio monitors. Heck, I think I spent more on my most recent guitar amp than I've EVER spent on a home stereo system! :) Most of my listening is done via my car radio, PC speakers or iPod player, and I strongly doubt I'd notice any difference through that equipment. I thought I - MAYBE - noticed a slight difference between the two REM clips, but it may have just been because I was really listening for it (and expecting it). In a blind test, I'm not sure I'd be able to pick it out.

With that said, I usually encode at 192 kbps when I rip my CD's.....just because, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockerbob    47

I can tell the difference, but it is subtle on most material, and 128 has become the default standard used today. I really prefer non-compressed audio. I am 50, but my ears are still pretty good. I had complete ear and hearing tests a couple years ago when I had some dizzy spells. My hearing overall was pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im 60, i can hear a small diff, but then im listening thru a suround sound system hooked to my comp, i record everything at 320, my main reason for this is because i record all my album to my comp and then run them thru a program to take out the hissing and clicks, and anytime you work with an mp3 u lose some of the quality

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, was hoping that more would respond.

it seems that across age groups from the few responces that 128 is good enough for most. i'm not sure if it was the samples given in the article or not but in the past i have noticed that 128 seemed muddier and on many recordings things like cymbals and 12 strings were partially lost or sounded totally different to me at a higher bitrate.

i think maybe heavier distorted guitar type sounds suffer much less than classical or jazz where listeners expect to hear minute changes in tone and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stratrat    0
....it seems that across age groups from the few responces that 128 is good enough for most. i'm not sure if it was the samples given in the article or not but in the past i have noticed that 128 seemed muddier and on many recordings things like cymbals and 12 strings were partially lost or sounded totally different to me at a higher bitrate...

I think a lot of it has to do with what kind of equipment you're listening through. If you're listening through good headphones or an audiophile-quality system, the difference in bitrate would probably be a lot more noticeable than through PC speakers, car stereo, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of it has to do with what kind of equipment you're listening through. If you're listening through good headphones or an audiophile-quality system, the difference in bitrate would probably be a lot more noticeable than through PC speakers, car stereo, etc.

right, exactly what i meant.

portables and common type car stereos and the like aside, there is an obvious difference to me in nearly all types of music but especially in classical and jazz.

maybe 162 or so would be good enough i suppose. i was under the impression that cds were recorded at 144.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dewy    0

I'd like to make the point that there is a time and place for ALL of these.

When you are mastering in the Studio and releasing on CD... 320 or higher should be minimum. That way when I purchase the CD I have the FULL version, quadraphonia or whatever...

192kbs is perfectly acceptable for most music reproduction... average car stereos and such...

and 128 or lower should be used for promotional releases and freely distributed, as "samples" and for educational use.

This would also provide benchmarks for bringing the IP laws into alignment with the current Digital and filesharing revolution taking place around us. Information should be free and widely distributed... not "owned".

Ohh, 39 (until July) and an audiophile since circa 1975. Inna Goda Davida thru headphones will do that to a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1

I can tell a difference. It's not huge, but it's there. I'm 25. While I could live with 128, I'd rather have the CD. ;)

The best way to do these tests is to do a "blind" test and have someone switch between the files and not tell you which is which. Or do what I did and load them into a recording program and mute one of the tracks, then use the solo button on that track to switch between them. I tested myself by clicking the solo button off/on like mad with my eyes closed so I had no idea what it landed on. Then switch back and forth and try to hear a difference.

I could tell the difference every time for both tracks.

I did the comparison on my studio monitors, but I can try it later on the family computer which has PC speakers. I doubt I'll hear any difference on them as they are junk. :thumbdown

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clancy    36

The best way to do these tests is to do a "blind" test and have someone switch between the files and not tell you which is which.

I agree, I'm way too good at lying to myself. :)

Clancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry lefty coud'nt hear any different must be me 51

Don't apologise Mickyboy, i'm intriqued by the range of responses.

I really thought that Musicians would be pickier about bitrate than they seem to be.

also, i assumed the younger, the higher the prefered bitrate.

although i had not taken into account the sample quality or the range of music types.

I am still pretty convinced tho that with above avg equipment and a more varied sample of tones like in Jazz, or classical elements that the higher bitrates would be prefered because at 48 i can hear the difference clearly between 128 and 192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dewy    0

I think to some degree the older musicians would "compensate" as we were raised on AM radio... but also we have appreciated the difference, so it may be more noticeable to us.

Its also a very valid point that some "musical styles" would show the lower bitrate obviously, while other styles might benefit... like John Fogerty and AM radio went well together.

Having enjoyed all kinds of music through all kinds of reproduction quality, from in the Studio making the music and hearing it through headphones... to trying to tune a transistor radio... all roads lead to the song as the determining factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48

I play everything thru my monitors and can tell the difference on some, as already mentioned the type of music & equipment decides on the amount actually heard. How about thru different players? notice any change...My creative player has a noticeable difference in quality than Vlc which is different than wmp. Maybe its a driver thing? Gonna try win-amp vs creative next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×