• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Can your "ear" hear the difference between ...

Walt

Walt

Well-Known Member
an MP3 encoded at the "standard" 128 kps, and one at say, 256 kps?

For me, when I use my tinny Lansing gutless desktop computer speakers I cannot.

But if I dump my soundcard output through a receiver and into my JBL's I most definitely can hear the difference. It's like the highs have been clipped and the lows are a bit more rumbly and muddy ... less defined.

Just my 2 c ... what have the other MP3 users out there found? What do you sample rate do you use when you rip?
 
Register to hide this ad

Im quite sure I can too - even with cheap headphones and not my Grados. However, I dont think I can discern differences between encodings above..say 192Khz.. although I havent dont much testing.
 
So when you are sitting at your computer (posting at AudioKarma) would you prefer to listen to MP3's encoded at 128 , or (now that you have your system in your bedroom) your stereo with CD's at the equiv of 1378?

MP3's for convenience? Do you find that sound fatiguing if you listen for some time?
 
Last edited:

well... I find that even though I enjoy good quality sound, music is still music and enjoyable for what it is.

I listen to 128kbit mp3's - not as much now as I have most of my mp3 music now on CD. I prefer 192kbit mp3's and higher as they seem to be either the same (audibly to me) as CD's, or pretty damn close.

You'd be surprised to find out I even have a 64kbit mp3 which I dont have on CD - and thus I listen to it and still enjoy the music (always wishing I had it higher quality tho)
 
What is it? (the 64 kps one)

Also, when you get beyond 192 kps, doesn't that start to defeat the purpose (i.e. compression)?
 

the 64kbit one is by The Shamen - Move Any Mountain, I do believe.

I dont think it defeats the purpose. Im sure you'll find that a 192kbit mp3 is still much smaller than its original .wav file.

 
7-ish times smaller than the .wav file at 192 kps I believe.

Yeah, what I said was once you get over 192 kps, it starts to become a bit more like ... why not get the .wav file. Also at that file size, it chews up more bandwidth when downloading them (but of course none of us do THAT!) ;)
 

yeah you do have a point. Although with cable, Im not too fussed if a 3min song is now 7mb... that is *if* i had to download an mp3 and we all know i dont :-)

i reckon the bulk of my mp3's must be 160kbit - it seems for me a good ratio between size/quality.

 
Mebbe if I was sober playing some jazz and could A, B them I could tell :D

But hammered listening to AC/DC's "It's a long way to the top if you wanna rock n roll" ummmmmm not! :p:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom