Anyone else use 320 kbps mp3's?, n00b here. Options

[JAKE196]

Hi, I'm kinda new to compressed audio encoding. . .

My Mp3 player supports mp3, aac, wma, and wav files and after doing a lot of listening to the different lossy formats and bitrates I decided to use 320 mp3's because to my ears they sound almost as good as CD quality, minus the frequency cut off.

I'm just wondering if anyone else here uses 320 kbps mp3's at all?

I've looked at some other threads and a lot of people say that if you are going to use 320 kbps mp3's you might as well use a lossless codec, and I understand that. (however, I use them because my player doesn't support any compressed lossless format)

I've also seen a lot of statements that 320 kbps is a pointless bitrate and something like 256 vbr is the highest thats worth using no matter what. I really don't agree with this, there is definitely an audible difference between 256 CBR or 256 VBR files and 320 files, to my ears anyway. (do I have really good ear's? I'm wondering) I have to admit LAME mp3's can pick up a lot of detail at 256 and 192 kbps, but they still don't sound as good as 320 mp3's.

I usually use 320 kbps mp3's, with the exception of fairly simple songs or exceptionally long songs, for which I use 256 kbps.

Just wanted to express my opinion and see how many other people use them, peace.

So answer the poll if it works. (this is my first post. . . )

I'll check back later.

[timcupery]

I agree with you throughout this thread, but feel I must be pedantic on this one.

A successful ABX test does not mean he finds the lossless sounds better than the lossy. It means he finds the lossless sounds distinguishably different than the lossy. Nothing more.

This is technically true. But for most people, the point of lossy compression is to sound indistinguishable to the original, but at a much lower bitrate.
So you're right, ABX testing means being able to hear a difference, not being able to hear which one sounds better. But if we assume the whole point of the endeavor is that the lossy sounds like the lossless, the lossy sounding unlike the lossless is worse.

[you're probably on the same page with me here, now that I think about your vs. kornchild's phrasing more carefully, but I figured this is worth elucidating]

[Soap]

[you're probably on the same page with me here, now that I think about your vs. kornchild's phrasing more carefully, but I figured this is worth elucidating]

Yes I am, I had just come back to clarify my position but you replied first.
I was just trying to be absolutely clear for our self-professed "noob" original poster that ABX testing determines differences, not quality. That quality is subjective and something determined by personal preference.

Clearly in the case of lossless vs lossy there is an ability to ABX (lack of) transparency (and therefore a reasonable claim of "better"), but in the case of lossy vs lossy better is completely subjective.

This post has been edited by Soap: Aug 5 2008, 15:52

[JAKE196]

Am I doing ABX tests the wrong way? Well this is the first time I've done any, someone should have told me.

I don't think comparing .mp3's to .wav's would work because I can always tell between them simply by listening to the cymbals. cymbals often sound like a jingly mess on mp3's but they sound good on .wav's.

. . . I guess that's because the frequency cutoff, before I decided to use mp3's I also tried AAC files with frequency cutoff's at 18khz, 20khz, etc. The cymbals on those files sounded better, but I decided the higher frequency cutoff wasn't worth the extra memory because the difference wasn't that big. Then I eventually decided to stick to mp3's because the frequency cutoff doesn't really effect the music that much. (cymbals, pffft)

I know there has been numerous debates about frequency stuff in the past, and i don't want to start another one, but also note that I am under 20 which means i should be able to hear higher frequencies than middle aged people. (I've at least done my homework on this one) (yay wiki) (also, you know those annoying ring tones that only young ppl can hear? Well if your old you don't, but yeah.)

I have tried comparing lower bitrate files and higher ones and i can tell the difference. . . I don't think comparing mp3's to .wav files would help much. I guess I'll try it just to make sure though, I will compare a 320 kbps mp3 (just to be safe) and a .wav file and see if I can beat an ABX test.

And of course remember that I have so much memory I can use slightly overkill bitrates if i want. I'm not going to use 320 kbps any more but i might as well use the highest bitrate for which I can tell the difference between lower ones. If quality is subjective like one of you said, I'll use the highest bitrates I deem fit, ABX tests or not.

Seriously, I got almost 8 gigs and the player wasn't even that expensive. Cheaper than those dam ipods, and better sound output. My Library isn't that big either.

You guys aren't going to convince me to use a lot lower bitrates, but I appreciate the continued input.

. . . and one more time, sorry, I guess you guys were fairly patient considering I was rambling on about something that isn't true. I was quite ignorant.

And all right, I get the point, CBR isn't as good as VBR, I knew that. But it isn't terrible.

That's all my thoughts.

Damn, that has to be one of the longest posts I've ever made on a forum. top 5.