128 vs 192 kbps

[Radboy]

I participated in a (blind) listening test, along with 41 other hombres, sponsored by Roel (r3mix) at the r3mix/cd-rw forums.

Most surprising were the quality of Dibrom's Standard & Xtreme presets (LAME encoder) .. now ALT presets.

I could hear a distinct different in the top three rated files .. all others sounded noticeably inferior .. but not by much. Had to listen closely (with Sennheiser headphones).

Ppl who are serious about audio encoding quality are leaving MP3 and migrating to MPEG Plus (Andree Buschmann, Germany) .. or even the ultimate: lossless compression.

 

[Siddhartha]

I ran an experiment to determine where I could hear the difference between a MP3 and the CD. I ripped the same song at 96, 128, 196, 224, and 320 kbs and compared them. I could definitely hear the difference between the CD and the song ripped at 128 anything above that I was guessing.

 

[Atlantean]

I would say 192 is better although it is getting harder to find ones at that bitrate, so I now have many that are encoded at 128 kbps. 256 is also nice if you can find it, or for the mp3's that you make.

 

[Bovinicus]

I think 192kb/s is a sweet spot. It is a good compromise between quality and compression. 256 is where mp3s really start to rival CD quality. However, a lot depends on the quality of your audio subsystem as well as your ears. If you don't notice a difference, by all means, stick with 128.

 

[tops]

great to see such a response.. especially considering i think i posted in the wrong section!
anyway, i do have a decent set of speakers.. connected my music system to my comp. ya my sound card is cheap. there is a difference between 128 and 192.. but i feel the 128 sounds better whereas 192 is too bassy... i'm the lone ranger with that opinion i guess!
and guess wat.. the next mp3 i got turned out to be a 64kbps! lol.. and no, i dont go to a gym!
i'll just long for that broadband connection to land up around here.. and keep converting all my 192s to 128s and save up on precious harddisk space (4GB () and my telephone charges on my dialup line!

 

[Bovinicus]

When I had a 56K connection, I usually stuck with 128 too. However, I usually go for 192 if I can get ahold of it now. It seems that most people like 128. So sometimes it is a little tough finding higher quality mp3s.

 

[Diable]

Eug, there's a AppleScript(you can get it here)that will let use LAME with iTunes.

 

[CocaCola5]

128 sounds better than 192 on "not quite perfect" singers like Madonna, Britney Spears. 128 has less bass/lower midrange, thus is good thing as far as female vocals is concerned.

 

[Workin']

<< 128 sounds better than 192 on "not quite perfect" singers like Madonna, Britney Spears. 128 has less bass/lower midrange, thus is good thing as far as female vocals is concerned. >>

Ummm, not really.... If anything, 128 sounds WORSE with female vocals, because the tendency for flanging (the high-frequency "swooshing" sound defect) is much greater at lower bitrates.

 

[Patryn]

192 is the only way to go. When I do rips I always use EAC (exact audio copy) and Lame. That's by far the best combo you could possibly use. We've made that the standard for rips on the board I'm on. It makes a big difference in quality. Takes a little longer but is by far worth it.

 

[CocaCola5]

<<

<< 128 sounds better than 192 on "not quite perfect" singers like Madonna, Britney Spears. 128 has less bass/lower midrange, thus is good thing as far as female vocals is concerned. >>

Ummm, not really.... If anything, 128 sounds WORSE with female vocals, because the tendency for flanging (the high-frequency "swooshing" sound defect) is much greater at lower bitrates. >>




I can be wrong but I always found the stereotypical female "pop" artists to sound better at 128 than at higher bitrates. I believe this is a result of 128 being somewhat bass shy which favor these types of music. You are right though that at the higher rates the "natural" female vocals(ie Celine Dion, Toni Braxton)sounds more accurate.

 

[Workin']

<< the "natural" female vocals >>

CocaCola5, are you trying to tell me Britney isn't natural? I'm not sure ANY bitrate could make her sound good.