|
Author
|
Topic: Unable to hear difference between 96, 128 and 192 kbps. - (Read 9 times)
|
Clark
Junior Member  From:Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 1
|
I am pretty new to mp3s. With a standard pair of headphones and windows media player. I can not hear much difference between 96, 128 and 192 kbps. Is this normal or do I need a better pair of headphone to hear the difference?
|
nomercy036
Junior Member From:Moscow, Russia
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 6
|
quote:
Originally posted by Clark:
I am pretty new to mp3s. With a standard pair of headphones and windows media player. I can not hear much difference between 96, 128 and 192 kbps. Is this normal or do I need a better pair of headphone to hear the difference?
There are two reasons for this case:
1) You need real nice headphones - let's say - Sunnheiser 5*0 series).
2) new DNA set  -tMH
|
Tomb
Moderator  From:Hackney, East London
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1481
|
You should hear a difference between 96 k/bits and 192 k/bits but if not it could be your hearing. Mines duff and sometimes, depending on the codec, the lower bitrates sound good to me. Maybe you want to try some testing. Here is an excellent link to get you started.What Is Blind Testing I use the PCABX (Winabx) Software. However use the bitrate which is good for you as you will be listening to the tracks. If 128 k/bits sounds as good to you as 192 k/bits then use the lower one. ------------------
Tom My Audiograbber Guides [This message has been edited by Tomb on 21 March 2005 @ 15:07]
|
Mikeg
Junior Member From:Forest Park, IL USA
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
|
It's all about what makes your ears happy and the equipment you use. With my $100.00 Sony amp and Radio Shack speakers in my office I can tell the difference right away between 128 and 192. 128 gives me ear fatigue - scratchy high sounds. 192 is much deeper and bassier - ahhhhh. On my motorcycle with my Pioneer amp and $60.00 speakers 128 is ok with me. I think it's all relative to what you hear and where you hear it. If you or I had major league high end equipment it would be a different deal for us.
MikeG
|
musicollector
Member From:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 52
|
I am generally happy with 128 bps files I get from others but when I encode, I encode mono music at 128 and stereo at 160 and 192. There is definitely a discernible difference between 128 and 160 or 192. I may not have Sennheisers, but I have relatively cheaper Grado SR-80s and I certainly hear the difference. I am leaning less and less towards 128 bps lately.------------------
Harry
http://harry.cckerala.com
Kerala, S. India images & all kinds of music
|
Taddeusz
Member From:Oklahoma City, OK
Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 36
|
I notice a big difference between them. I encode all my music with LAME using VBR "--preset standard". It creates quite high quality audio files while keeping the sizes down to a pretty good level. Average bitrate is probably around 250kbps. The bitrates I use can be anywhere between 128k to 320k depending on what is needed to keep audio quality at an even level.I used to encode strictly at 160k but still noticed some artifacting in higher frequency sounds. Tori Amos's voice does not take well to MP3 encoding. Since I switched to VBR encoding I've noticed that the higher frequency sounds are much sharper and as far as my ears can tell free of any major artifacts. If you have the space definitely go with VBR encoding.
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
Click here to bookmark this thread!
Audiograbber Forums
posted 21 March 2005 14:00 
