Can you tell the difference between 128/192/320kbs?
 

I'm curious! I see a lot of people with mixed answers....soo I want to know how the population of AHS is on this topic x33

:) I myself can hear the difference...128kbs annoys me so much XD

Yes, I can. 128 kbps sounds so bad xD Go 320 kbps!

Personally, No.
I see more KBs as more room on the harddrive; and they all sound the same to me. Music is music.

^ Agreed...music is music is music (as that..err..saying goes :P)

I don't really care about Kbps or whatnot as long as I can listen to the music. ^^;

To me, anything 128 kbs or above is okay. But I can still tell the differemce between different bitrates.

The difference between 128 & 192 is distinct. Above that though, not so different for me. But I usually get 320 whenever I can. :P

I actually prefer VBR over CBR. It's just better sense. :P

I can. I'm a quality *****.

if you have it at a higher level, the static in the 128 and 192 becomes more distinct. Plus, most 320 kbps songs have a higher base level than the other kbps. 128 is usually much softer, and higher volume is required, which in turn makes it more static-y. I find 192 to be a better bitrate.

I hear the difference in between 128 kbps & 192 kbps , but not really in 192 kbps to 320 kbps.

I agree. :)

I do not like 128 KB/s mp3s that muchz because they do not sound so good to me. 192 KB/s is okay but I prefer VBR from 128 KB/s up to 320 KB/s that saves a little space on the hard drive and it sounds a little bit better than 192 KB/s mp3. I think 320 KB/s CBR is a bit too much because without a good player and boxes you won't hear much difference to 192 KB/s.
I ripped my own CDs all with VBR and I think it's good that way.

ja ne

Does the difference mean file sizes? From 128 to 320... they sound the same to me.

yes..i can't describe it
but yes...just a little difference but have a huge effect for me

It means both file size and sound quality.

For use on the computer, really, 192kbp or 224kbp is fine to me. If I'd really want it that high in quality, I'd go buy the CD to hear things lost in mp3. The file size for 320kbp files is just too big for me. 128kbp is bearable if I can't find anything better, like some others have said, it can be fairly noticeable between 128kbp and 192kbp, but not so much after that.

Same here. 128 kbs is so awful that you can easily tell the difference. Though 192 & 320 kbs is not as evident to me, I can say which is which. In 320 kbs, the background sounds especially are sharper and louder. I prefer good quality music, so it is very annoying for me to get small files sizes. Greater quality enhances the song to a better level.

Sometimes I can tell. It depends on what it's ripped with.

What's VBR and CBR? and what are the differences? :)

VBR stands for Variable Bit Rate and CBR for Constant Bit Rate.

I tried explain them a bit but try wikipedia if this is confusing lol :

on 192 CBR mp3 the bit rate always stays at 192 . on VBR mp3 the bit rate varies according to the mp3 , more sounds higher the bitrate. on the more silent parts of the mp3 the bit rate is lower. The idea behind VBR is to save in file sizes & and there are different quality VBR around. some are for example from 128 kbps ~ 224 kbps and some could be from 192 kbps ~ 320 kbps.

music is music?? dude you got to put more passion for music!!!

Halla, I definitely did not know about that stuff ^^; Thanks for the information

I dont know, but I'd use either 128 or 320, and 320 is a lot better. I think that by using a low bitrate, high notes and loud noises have that annoying scratchy sound to it which is unbearable?

I can tell the difference between 128 and 192, but after that I'm lost.

Personally, the higher the KB, the more annoyed I get because that's more space and more time for it to download. Oh well.

not really...it all sounds basically the same to me. :shrug

coooool!!! ^^- sooo... get what it does and how it does...but i don't know how it would sound like....do you have examples of the same song in both CBR and VBR?

Maybe I can find one. After I ripped my CDs again to VBR mp3s I used to delet the CBR ones...
But I will have a look. Should not be too much work to rip one song once more in CBR and VBR quality.

ja ne

no i cant tell a difference, and i dont really care what bitrate a song is. i just download it or buy it. as said above, music is music...

Hehe I think that's very well-explained.

To add to that...VBR assigns the "right" amount of bitrate to each second of the song...so if at that second the music/sound is more complex/layered, it will have a higher bitrate to fit all the elements. In contrast, if that second is just some simple bit, the bitrate will be lower. The advantage of VBR is that it's resource efficient. As opposed to CBR, which you have the same bitrate to every second, including places where the music is simple or even silent, VBR corrects for that. Therefore the file size of VBR mp3s is usually smaller (compared to like, 320kbps).

I prefer VBR myself, just 'cause it's cool to see the bitrate go up & down while you listening to a song. xD (haha not)

128KBS are staticy and you can't really hear the song unless the volume is up pretty high.

Usually 192 is good, and I usually have those instead of the 320. 320's are the best though. Good quality music =D

I notice the difference between 128 and 192 -- especially when I have the volume up ;)

A little bit.

Nope. And sometime, the 320 kpbs doesn't sound loud as the other. I convert all my songs in 128 kbps for less place for my computer and iPod. I don't see the difference.

i see a BIG diffrenece. i listened to my copy of EXODUS by Utada on 128 for months, then for some reason, i decided to rip it at 320 and it sounds WAY diffrent. now i have all my songs at 320 (most of them) and they all sound alot louder, actually...

here here ^____^

The difference between 128kbs and 192kbs is so distinct that i sometimes half to turn off 128 mp3's. 192 is perfect for me, decent quality and reasonable file sizes. I don't see the need for file sizes to reach 12-15mb when you get almost the same quality for for files half the size.

"About you" was one of my only 320 kbps song and the volume was really low compared to the rest of my songs. I always had to turn up for this song, then turn back down for the rest.

a little bit...

No. 96kbps is fine for me.

haha. cant really tell.. cos most of my mp3s are 128 kbs!

Yes, I HATE 128 or lower. It's not always noticeable on my computer, but when I'm listening with my iPod, or if I burn it and play it in a car, I can definitely hear the difference. Though some formats (i.e. not mp3) sound better at 128 than others.

i chose no, but actually 128 and 192 sound a bit different to me

Yes. It also really helps when you listen on a high-end audio system. I can clearly hear the difference between 192 and 320

It really depends on how loud you play your music and the quality of your speakers.

Basically, even 320 kbps will begin to sound static-y if you crank up a high-end speaker. But usually 192 kbps sounds as good as the cd.

Yes, I won't usually keep songs that are ripped under 320. 192 bare minimum.

I can tell the difference between 128 -> 160 -> 192kbps, and depending of the song (rockish songs, like GAME and Humming 7/4), I can even tell the difference between 256kbps -> 320kbps .-.

I like to compress my CDs with FLAC now, even with 320kbps, a lot of quality and the "highest feeling frequencies" are lost. But NOTHING beats DVD AUDIO!

Exactly. 128kbps scares the hell out of me .-.

Not really, but that's because I have really poor ears I think.

I agree!!.. I can tell the difference between 24/96 & 24/192, but I've done alot of high res audio work in the past so my ears are trained to pick things out.

^ u are so lucky...i can't tell the difference between 192 and 320...

128 - Good
192 - sounds the same
320 - somehow clearer

i can a little but i don't really care about it as much i can get 123kbp or higher it doesn't make a difference they are all the same music

I'll take the best quality I can. It doesn't make a terribly big difference to me, but 320 kbs does sound a lot louder and clearer than 128 kbs.

Yes.. but that's because I listen to music through big fat media headphones, which makes sounds already more clear for me than somebody who listens to music with speakers

A little bit. I feel that 320kbs takes up more space so i will go for this quality only when i'm downloading my favourite singers' songs.

well...i can to an extent...cos some of them are obviously lower in quality with lower kbs...but certain songs seem to be better with lower kbs :thud

Well, I can if one file is 40 kbps and the other one is like 128 kbps ...

But I never heard the difference between 128 or 320...
It's obvious 320 kbps is higher quility but I can't hear the difference.

I can't really tell the difference. I'm not really fussed about quality.

honestly, i never hear any different between 192 and 320 :laugh

Sooo much. 128k/160k sounds terrible here, and 256k/320k/FLAC's are awesome. xD

I think a lot of it depends on how you listen to your music. If you have bad or just so-so speakers, it'll be harder to hear the difference unless you play it at high levels. Good headphones will definitely change your mind if you can't hear the difference.

i can tell the difference between 128kbps and 192 kpbs. at 128, not all the instruments are heard clearly, and the sound isn't as crisp.

as for 192 and 320 kbps, I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE, therefore, to save space, i only save songs at 192kbps.

I don't have a very good ear for hearing the difference between qualities, but the idea of having a low-quality sound file annoys the hell out of me >____<
My iTunes shows the bitrate of the files and, as dumb as this may sound, when I see the 128/192kbps quality there, it hurts my eyes.
I'll only start downloading lower quality files when I desperatly need more disk space, it's VERY annoying.

And so, music should only be heard in the best quality.

128 - They sound crackly, and distorted.
192 - They sound decent. Acceptable.
320 - Amazing. So crisp, and the bass lines and drums are much clearer on my headphones especially.

I really noticed the difference when I ripped my own DOUBLE album (official) and downloaded the same album. Everything had a much fuller sound on the version I ripped myself at 320 then the downloaded copy. :eviltongu

Well I use an iPod...so when I am using that everything sounds the same. Through my laptop or a CD in my car though...you definitely notice 320.

hmm i can mostly tell the difference, 128 just annoy me so much...@_@

I really can't. 's why I always rip my files at 160kbps - sounds as good as 320kbps to me, and it saves space, haha =x

As others have noted, I believe a good deal of it comes down to what you are using to listen to your music with. The artifacts of lossy compression can be particularly apparent when monitoring with high quality speakers or headphones.

I keep my collection of music in WAV format for the most part. It surely takes up more hard drive space, and there is a price premium when purchasing digital music online in that format, but it's worth it for me.

I can barely tell the difference. 192 kbps sounds a bit better than 128, but 320 doesn't sound different from 192. I'm pretty much satisfied with 192 kbps.

I use 128kbps AAC because i can fit more onto my ipod LOL. It sounds great though. 16211 songs so far..

Yes. I can also tell the difference between 320 and FLAC/M4A Lossless

i can't tell a single difference
seriously...lols
how can ppls tell the difference!?
they're both the same sounds
lols

I used to not be able too, but now I can tell if something is 128kbs,sounds so baaaaaaaaad... Can't tell the difference between 192 and 320 though.

If you have a quality headset, earphones or speakers you can. I can easily tell between 192 and 320. 128 sounds awful to me. It's crummy.

yes...i can definitely tell a difference

192kbps and 320kbps don't really sound that different to me, while 128kbps is like.. EW. XD

Not really

i don't care much of the Kbps coz my songs are all in 128kbps...I think the higher the kbps the bigger the File Size

No
i can hear the difference between 96 kbps and 128 kbps, but i cant hear the difference above 128 kbps

Between 128 and 192 I can but 192 and 320 sound the same too me.

I can hear the difference between 96 and 128 but I can't tell the difference between the others. to be honest, I just get the bigger file sizes because it is "supposed" to sound better. Not really because I prefer it.

I only hear little difference if I'm in a quiet room using the right audio cables and speakers or headphones. And the type of song I'm listening to may or may not make a difference as well.

eeeww i dont know the different. just the size become bigger if the KBPS higher

not really lol

I can tell a distinct difference between 192 and 320kbps when I'm using my kick ass Logitech Z-2300 (2.1) 200W Speakers, but on my Sony headphones it sounds almost Identical.

However, I can't tell any difference between a 320kbps .mp3 and a .FLAC file. I've read somewhere that most people wouldn't notice the higher sound quality without a good 5.1 or 7.1 sound system.

yes, but I don't see how people can tell between 256kbps and 320kbps. They are the same for me so I rip lower for more HD space.

not on my headphones but on my speakers...

it depends...
i have this 128kbps song thats lik 7 min long and it sounds really hq xD

definitely between <128 and 192+

Anything below 192, there is definite loss in quality...however...

192 and higher, I don't have good enough equipment to tell the difference.

Although I have one song both in 192 and 320, and for some reason, the 320 is noticeably better...so perhaps its the way the person ripped it.

nope

ikd what it is and i dont care

people are waaaay to picky about it

Yes I can tell... = = You know 320kbps musics are kinda... clear?.. But compare to 320kbps, 128kbps is not that clear and nice..

= = I know it's confusing, right?

yeah... i can hear the difference...

but i use the 160kbps often... ^_^

You can hear a big difference when listening to a MegaMix album (even downloading a 320kps version frankly) Since I downloaded ayu-mi-x II Non-Stop before and it was really bad at going into the next track. I bought the actual album and I was surprised at how well they flowed together when actually owning the CD xD That's why I really want Driving Hit's. I want my tracks to flow perfectly on the actual remix album rather than sound choppy. And if you downloaded OUT WORKS before, you can tell the difference between the 128kps of Get It On with the next track, which was 320kps the meaning of peace xD

Yes. Annoys me to no end if it's 128kps. Even 192kps bothers me. I prefer VBR but hardly does anybody rip at that rate so 320kps.

no I can't hear any diff :P

Haha what is KBPS is my question?
:D

I can't really hear any difference between 128 and 192, but in terms of 128 and 320, and 192 and 320, I do hear a difference in the quality. :)

It depens on the circumstances, a) headphones/system, with some of my headphones I dont really hear a difference b) the song itself, of course, quieter songs dont have such a difference, but still sound way clearer c)if i have listened to the song in high and low quality, for example, after i listened to Ayumi_lovers HQ versions of the MY STORY album, even the 320kbits arent enough for me, not nearly, i cant stand them anymore xD

I can't tell a difference between 192 and above. 128 is horrible though. x_x