![difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps](https://heatfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screenshot-2020-10-20-at-3.06.31-AM.png)
Some researchers say that a surprisingly large proportion of young people are more likely to say they prefer the sound of an MP3 to a WAV: so much exposure to the format has resulted in teenagers learning to find the 'sizzle' (which we'd call digital distortion) desirable. That's about the most accurate anyone can be, without giving specific examples.
![difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps](http://www.michielvanerp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/starseeds.320.jpg)
To most people, most 320k mp3s sound as good as WAVs on most audio systems. and the sensitivity of human hearing to some of these aren't very well known. And similarly entire songs which fit into each of those categories.Įven if it did degrade every recording by the same amount, there are so many ways in which a signal can be distorted: frequency response, non-linearity, harmonics, additive noise, phase distortion. Some sounds compress better than others in MP3, so if you're using a constant bit rate of 320k there will naturally be bits which compress without anyone being able to distinguish the difference, bits which everyone can distinguish and bits in between where some people will be able to tell and others won't. MP3 is designed to focus on removing frequencies our hearing isn't as sensitive to, so when that and things like frequency masking come into play, you could potentially have an MP3 with a frequency spectrum which looks terrible, but which sounds exactly like the original to the human ear. MP3 is a very complicated kind of encoding and you can't just judge it by comparing the frequency content of one recording before and after compression (which is what a lot of people base their "it's shit" arguments on). The long and the short of it is that it depends on the input material.
Difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps 320 kbps#
Re: Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbsĪ good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range. Some people with hyperacusis can just barely hear a difference at 256 kbps, but a good 320 kbps encoding is completely transparent within the most liberally-chosen boundaries of human hearing range.Įven 192 kbps is imperceptible in most cases because the quality loss from the listening equipment itself overshadows any quality loss from the compression. Just like there is a difference between 320 kbps and wav. Re: Re: Difference between 192 and 320 kbs I would work in the highest format you can and if you're listening to those CD's as reference material for tracks then make sure you take that into account
![difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RgeEuRQLZTE/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's taken me almost 4yrs to really KNOW my studio speakers, and i think only recently can i say with confidence that. you can't possibly know all the little subtitles of your new headphones to make educated remarks on audio fidelity. I think what sticks out most to me in your sentence is your new headphones. There is a relevant difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps, just like there is a difference between 320 kbps and wav. Posted by TranceElevation on May-09-2011 22:13: Is it just me who cant hear any difference or anyone else? What is the difference really? I rip all my music from cds in 192 kbs to save space. I got myself new headphones (ATH-M50) and decided to check if i finally could hear the difference between a 192 kbs file and a 320 but i really cant. A good one in your living room is enough.Difference between 192 and 320 kbs - TranceAddict Forums Also, you should have a reasonable quality speakers and sound equipment. There's also other considerations to do, check you DLNA Server as audio source, normally its streams audio making compression on the fly, depending on the configurations the DLNA server has, so check it. You need some specific tracks to hear what you have lost remarkably, but makes you wonder what the lossy rips have taken out also from some of not so obvious rips. I faced the same problem when I copied all my CD and Audio DVDs to my computer hard drive so I could hear it on my home network, first I used mp3 320 Kbits as it was more compatible, then also used the maximum bitrate possible on AAC format, but then after several hearings of my music, something didn't sound right, the presence and impact of several music tracks were not the same, I thought it was the speakers I used, and tried of my High Definition Speakers, the same, then I got my shelved CDs and ripped to flac, and WOW, it was like a new music, some instruments even were absent from some tracks on mp3 and aac, mostly in low bands, after that I just use FLAC when I can.