Advertisement
i dont know about u but i think 320 bitrate mp3s sound too overcompressed, 192 is where its at!! what do u prefer, 320 is like an suv compared to 192 is like running biodiesal!
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sun, January 18, 2009 - 9:58 AMif you think 192k sounds better than 320k, i'm wondering what you are using to compare -- i suspect you're not really comparing apples to apples. by definition 320k *should* sound better than 192k (there's more of the original sound information) -- but that's assuming all things are equal (recording quality, levels, etc.) if you compare a badly recorded 320k to a well recorded 192k i can see the 192k coming out better, but the problem isn't the encoding, it's the recording.
to fairly test the bitrates you have to start with the same sound and use the same encoding process with merely different bitrates. i think if you do that test it will be hard to conclude that 192k sounds *better* -- i think the result will have the 320k sounding somewhere in the range of "much better" to "about the same" on a home system. in a club or on a seriously re-inforced system the difference will be more apparent--the bass is more full in the 320k (because more of the sound information is there and frequencies take a lot of energy to reproduce faithfully.) -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sun, January 18, 2009 - 12:50 PM320 is over compressed sounds like shit compared to 192 try it yourself! theres a certain thickness that reminds me of a triton sound compared to that of a like a dx7
-
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mon, January 19, 2009 - 1:03 AManyways im converting my 320 tracks to 192! save some room too! its like flattening cardboard for some reason -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mon, January 19, 2009 - 6:07 PMif you're converting your 320s to 192k you're actually degrading them a bit. maybe you like some grit? -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mon, January 19, 2009 - 6:48 PMit sounds better to me at 192 for some reason the synths sound more crisp! -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tue, January 20, 2009 - 6:37 PMit's the compression & resulting freq response.
some other types of music may not fare as well. cymbal-heavy and percussion-laden music often sounds "crunched" at lower bitrates. -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wed, January 21, 2009 - 5:16 AMi guess everyone has there own way to enjoy it, the ambient tracks i can tell
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thu, January 22, 2009 - 12:23 PMIt may be the encoder you are using. Since the 'logical' answer is that 320 should sound better, and it is supported by information like this:
www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html
As well, this is interesting information from (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3) :
"The MPEG-1 standard does not include a precise specification for an MP3 encoder, but does provide example psychoacoustic models, rate loop, and the like in the non-normative part of the original standard."
"As a result, there are many different MP3 encoders available, each producing files of differing quality. Comparisons are widely available, so it is easy for a prospective user of an encoder to research the best choice. It must be kept in mind that an encoder that is proficient at encoding at higher bit rates (such as LAME) is not necessarily as good at lower bit rates."
What would be cool is that if you provided your data for us to check out.. ie. the original material, your compressed tests, the name of the app you use for encoding, and the exact settings for each encoding.. -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thu, January 22, 2009 - 2:20 PMi get stuff at 320 all the time, and they sound overcompressed!
the 192 has more crisp sound to it, its just my preference i guess.
"just because something has more of something doesnt mean its always better"
anyone that uses the triton keyboard for example that shit is alike $2,000
and my dx7 cost like $150 , the dx7 way older sounds way tighter, the triton the frequencies are more wider and hog up the frequencies, the triton is a piece of shit compared to the dx7, alot of the older keyboards u need more layers to give it more depth whereas the triton its hard to layer it because of the way it sounds, this reminds me of how 320 is, way to overcompressed and not crisp but seems more chunky! -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thu, January 22, 2009 - 2:42 PMwhat you say is true in the world of finances, but I don't believe it holds over for the world of numbers, where more (higher sampling rate, wider bit depths, etc) mean more accuracy... the cost of a piece of gear is arbitrary, the numbers behind the math of audio compression are not.. to be clear, I certainly honor the fact that regardless of the ACTUAL quality of the signal, your ears/brain prefer the sound of a 192 encoding... but, based on the fact that what you are saying does not make sense, I was trying to start bringing together some data that might help us understand whether the phenomenon you describe is a more universal experience, an experience based on software/hardware, or simply a personal physiological experience.. thus, I tried to present some basic data that seems to both indicate that theoretically what you say is incorrect, but that implementation details do have an effect on the result...
one interesting thing I read on several sites was that most people thought 192 sounded as good as the cd, and that they couldn't tell a difference between 192 and 320..
so, what I am getting from you is that the experience you describe is not based on a single encoder, nor single recording environment, since it is common regardless of where you get the 320 encodings.. now that leaves the decoding software and playback audio hardware (including speakers/headphones).. oh, and your own hardware (ears/head/brain)...
peace
-cpr -
-
Re: 320 or 192 kps mp3z!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sun, January 25, 2009 - 7:22 AM<one interesting thing I read on several sites was that most people thought 192 sounded as good as the cd, and that they couldn't tell a difference between 192 and 320.. >
for most listening situations i'm not surprised. however when you're in a situation where the playback gear is above-average (e.g. a club with good speakers for each frequency range and sufficient power for each--mostly the bass) i think that might change.
of course, this goes to your statement that the decoding equipment makes a difference as well. when listening to music in a club you use more than just your ears, ex: if something is bass-heavy but you can't *feel* it, people often think it isn't loud enough.
-
-
-
