The difference in kbps

[Th3MaN1]

After listening to my MP3 for quite a while in school (I know, I'm stuck in 2008), I've started to think about the kbps. I know the general definition of it: The more kbps, the better quality. Maybe something's wrong with my ears, but can anyone give me examples of, let's say, the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps? And I mean a significant difference.

[Vanto]

I think that at 256kbps you can hear sounds from a song that you'll probably won't in a song at 128kbps. Like, for example, in a song at 256kbps you hear a low sound that you won't hear at 128kbps. Sorry if you don't understand what I mean.

[Th3MaN1]

I think that at 256kbps you can hear sounds from a song that you'll probably won't in a song at 128kbps. Like, for example, in a song at 256kbps you hear a low sound that you won't hear at 128kbps. Sorry if you don't understand what I mean.

I understand what you said perfectly, I'll check into it. I just found a free program which converts MP3 files to a max of 310 (approx. , can't remember, currently using it now so I can't check), but I suppose more kbps = better quality, so for now, I'll let the program work and convert every song I possess.

[Ex Hellraiser]

Well, I've never really noticed a difference between 128 and 256 or 320, but you can definitely tell if something is below 128. Below that a lot of sound is lost, and there is more bleed. The spectrum of sound you can hear in music definitely gets shorter as the kbps get smaller, but I have no problem hearing anything at 128.

 

But, I don't think using a program to convert lower kbps songs to higher will make it sound better. It is one thing to take away higher spectrum sound, but it would seem more complicated to add sounds to a low quality file where that sound doesn't exist. Adding the extra kbps would either mean simply copying existing sound bytes or meshing between 2 consecutive ones to create a different sounding one (if that makes sense). I've never used a program like that, though, so I wouldn't know if it works or not. The few songs I have at 64/72/96 kbps I've just left at that quality.

[Th3MaN1]

Well, I've never really noticed a difference between 128 and 256 or 320, but you can definitely tell if something is below 128. Below that a lot of sound is lost, and there is more bleed. The spectrum of sound you can hear in music definitely gets shorter as the kbps get smaller, but I have no problem hearing anything at 128.

 

But, I don't think using a program to convert lower kbps songs to higher will make it sound better. It is one thing to take away higher spectrum sound, but it would seem more complicated to add sounds to a low quality file where that sound doesn't exist. Adding the extra kbps would either mean simply copying existing sound bytes or meshing between 2 consecutive ones to create a different sounding one (if that makes sense). I've never used a program like that, though, so I wouldn't know if it works or not. The few songs I have at 64/72/96 kbps I've just left at that quality.

I've actually tried what you said, and I thought my ears were going to bleed at 64 kbps. Also tried with 310 kbps, and heard no significant differences. Oh well, might as well leave it like that.

[DEALUX]

There was a test online somewhere where you could try and tell the difference between different bitrates. You can only tell the difference if you really pay attention to the music but it also depends on what equipment you have. If you listen to music on crappy headphones or speakers you probably won't be able to tell the difference. 128 Kbps generally sounds really bad compared to higher quality MP3 files. Once you are able to spot the difference you will notice it more often.

 

I personally buy\download my music in the highest quality possible (FLAC, WAV, or similar lossless formats). I know that it's next to impossible to tell the difference between a 320 Kbps MP3 and a CD quality audio file, but to me the difference is similar to the difference between an authentic painting and a really good fake. You may not be able to tell them apart but you will always know that you have the crappier version, so why not get the best\authentic version (in this case, CD quality audio files as recorded in the studio)?

[Slamman]

If you try any DIGITAL media, audio or video in different compression schemes and codecs, you'll eventually stumble upon a threshold where the digital conversion rate effects your sound quality in a way it becomes an issue for you.

 

I truly believe each person is different in regards to what that will be, so it's up to you, dear listener, to attempt some experimentation to find what codec encode/decode specification is up your alley.

 

If the software or hardware you're using to convert or capture digital Multimedia allows user changeable options in that regard.

 

I'm doing some of that myself with the digital cameras I've bought recently (all used, and somewhat dated)

If you transfer to online or from one computer to another, the larger files will no doubt offer the best quality and least compression, but they will be slow and they WILL hog space of just about any storage medium under the sun.

 

When you go for the most economical compression, audio suffers FIRST, and it loses STEREO ability as you go down to the lowest setting quality wise, highest compression wise.

 

NOTE, if you're striking a balance, as most people presumably do, Listen close for reverberation characteristics. As the audio starts to suffer, I notice an intrusive echo and harshness invade the music, no matter what type of music, even voice recordings.

 

I might as well throw in your topic, instead of a new one, if you want quality near Audiophile levels, look into what musician Neil Young is trying to offer, a musical service like iTunes for people who are REALLY discriminating when it comes to what they won't compromise. You know that living legend Neil Young is serious about music quality and he aims to tackle it in the digital age....

 

http://www.spin.com/articles/neil-young-pono-music-service-sxsw/

Edited March 15, 2014 by Slamman