MightyJordan Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It's probably just my ears, but a while back, I did a comparison of "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance. I had it in 320kbps, and then copied it and converted it to 96kbps via GoldWave. I couldn't hear any difference. But now that I've got my Zune, it seems to sound different. I also tried this before with other artists (Atreyu, Hoobastank). I converted it to 96kbps, but this was before I got the Zune, and I think I could hear a difference. The Atreyu songs sounded a bit "messed up" after conversion, but it never really showed until I played them on my Zune. I'm thinking of downloading all of my music again (well, half of it is already on CDs), and just leaving the bit rate as it is. The only worries I have are size, and time. I'll have to get all my music again anyway, as I'm upgrading my CPU, RAM, and motherboard during the weekend, and I'll have to reinstall XP. But back to the original question. Can anyone here hear a difference in quality between a song in 320kbps, and the same song converted to 96kbps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nocstar Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Well converting a file that originally is 320kbps to 96kbps should be noticeable. 320 is already a compressed file and further compression done to it should sounds worse. So to make this a short answer... Yes I do notice the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyJordan Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 It probably is just me then. I never noticed a difference when I converted to 128kbps. Same for 112 and 96 ages ago, but now my ears are getting better, and now I'm noticing the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da13ro Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It can definetly be the equipent you play it on aswell. Not sure about the zune, but hook an ipod up to a kick ass sound system and it will sound worse than an am radio. Visa versa too to take into account the equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyJordan Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 Thanks for the tip. I forgot to mention about my last MP3 player, which is actually my phone. I didn't hear any difference in sound quality when I was using my Sony Ericsson W810i headphones. I automaticaly assumed ages ago that these earphones were better quality than regular headphones, because they had more bass in them. But then again, it's probably just me. I seem to still prefer them to the norm. I would use them with my Zune, but they're too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhon Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 All depends of the hardware. On my iPod I have some songs at 160kbps and the rest at 192kbps. The 192 is louder and has better quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanekiwi Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) my personal answer to your questions is: hell no. get your ears checked. APS ftw! Edited January 18, 2007 by insanekiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da13ro Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 hehe yea the W810i's headphones are cool (not to mention great phone itself, got it a couple of months ago) the headphones are anoying though, have absolutly no use besides the phones. Go play the song, at a home theatre store in one of there demo rooms, you might be impressed :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Veteran Posted January 18, 2007 Veteran Share Posted January 18, 2007 Echoing what others are saying - yes there's a huge difference, but it's more apparent when you're listening on better hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6785077276 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) 96 kbps caps at around 14kHz 320 kbps caps at around 20kHz Yes, I can hear the difference. Of course, I have high end earphones such as the Etymotic ER6i and Shure E3C so I have trained myself to listen to audible compression artefacts, so I can clearly tell the difference. It also depends on whether you can hear higher frequencies such as 20 kHz+. Head over to http://www.hydrogenaudio.org if you want to go in-depth. Edited January 18, 2007 by digitalnemesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PT 13 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 No they don't sound the same, there's a big difference between 96kbps and 320kbps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriz Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 No, i can definately hear more quality in 320kbps. 96kbps sounds a lot more flatter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dauma Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Can anyone here hear a difference in quality between a song in 320kbps, and the same song converted to 96kbps? Yes, I can. Except the convertions where's not mp3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlexor Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 The real question is, why aren't you using Lame VBR MP3s? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowcra Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 yes i can definately hear the difference. my ears are like hawks, i can tell just by listeing, what its been encoded by. 128 and 192 are like two completely different settings for me. use what you feel good with. any Q's pm me eh :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted January 18, 2007 MVC Share Posted January 18, 2007 The real question is, why aren't you using Lame VBR MP3s? :) I was going to say the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micro Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I can definately tell the difference, ever since i had my first mp3 player - 6 years ago i have been able to EASILY tell 96 from 192 and 128 from 192, but not so much 192 from 320.. I might have sensative ears or it might be the expensive sound system in my car but i have always been able to hear the difference. in fact i wont even listen to a song unless its above 128, i might make acceptions now and then but mostly i wont listen to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePitt Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Does 96kbps sound the same as 320kbps to you? if you cant note the difference, you should go to a doctor ASAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alsheron Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Echoing what others are saying - yes there's a huge difference, but it's more apparent when you're listening on better hardware. I'd recommend using average hardware so that this loss of quality doesn't show up as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I can't say I'm surprised that one can't tell the difference between 320 and 96kbps MP3s if listening on bad headphones or speakers. Personally, 128kbps is really pushing it; I won't bother with anything under that. For my tastes, 192kbps is what I'll typically rip at, but I find 320 is mostly wasted space. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 my personal answer to your questions is: hell no. get your ears checked. APS ftw! OMG! You're back!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathachew Veteran Posted January 18, 2007 Veteran Share Posted January 18, 2007 Yes I hear the difference. Typically I can hear artifact distortion, or whatever it's called, which the quality of the music is poor. I store my music in 192kbps. Anything above this is not noticeable in the sound of the music. As _dandy_ said, 320 is mostly wasted space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG- Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 VBR is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hmm, are we talking mp3's now and not some next gen format with almost twice the efficiency such as AAC? In case of mp3's, yes, 96 kbps vs 320 would clearly make a difference to me especially in headphones. Drum hits tend to become more "muffled" or "softened" in sound, and high pitched sounds can also lose their clarity. If you'd ask me about difference between 192 and 320, I'd probably not hear much of a difference though. VBR is the way to go. I'd agree; set at about 160-192 kbps as average or so. That'd be what I'd use anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Bloo Monkee Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I can tell anything below 128 - 96 is noticeable though. I don't really notice any difference between 128 vs 192 (or higher). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(480p).thumb.jpg.2ac315e4c5c69cd7a06c4ee447dab4ca.jpg)
Recommended Posts