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.

[JAKE196]

Sorry, I should have read the rules, I didn't know this forum was so incredibly serious.

I swear I could tell between a high bitrate VBR version of a fairly complex song and a 320 kbps version of a fairly complex song as long as they were encoded the same. Is there any way we can set up a test on this site?

I agree with the idea that high VBR's sound pretty much as good as 320 kbps mp3's, but any low/medium bitrate VBR just doesn't sound as good. . . 320 kbps songs may pick up more noise, but they do sound better imo.

Also know that I can tell the difference between the specified files on my computer as well as my mp3 player which has a higher quality sound output than most other players. I'm also using some fairly good on ear headphones which were specifically designed for portable mp3 players and portable CD players.

I'm not completely paranoid about quality, I swear I can hear a difference!!!!

I'm not making a blind assumption, there is a difference in how well instruments sound and how much detail is captured. . .

Please don't be mad I'm only saying my opinion and I will take some kind of test if thats possible. I'm sorry I broke the terms/rules.

that's all I'm saying for today. . . good night.

And again, Peace!

[kornchild2002]

Sorry, I should have read the rules, I didn't know this forum was so incredibly serious.

I swear I could tell between a high bitrate VBR version of a fairly complex song and a 320 kbps version of a fairly complex song as long as they were encoded the same. Is there any way we can set up a test on this site?

Yes, Hydrogenaudio is filled with many people (including myself) who take audio claims seriously. Hence the need for YOUR blind ABX test results if you are going to continue to make such claims.

I agree with the idea that high VBR's sound pretty much as good as 320 kbps mp3's, but any low/medium bitrate VBR just doesn't sound as good. . . 320 kbps songs may pick up more noise, but they do sound better imo.

There is a reason why people keep saying that 320kbps is overkill and it is that they have conducted their own blind ABX tests and analyzed the public tests from the community. Unless you are listening to a killer sample, there simply is no need to encode at 320kbps.

Also know that I can tell the difference between the specified files on my computer as well as my mp3 player which has a higher quality sound output than most other players. I'm also using some fairly good on ear headphones which were specifically designed for portable mp3 players and portable CD players.

Good for you but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about your/everyone's ability to distinguish between a 320kbps mp3 file and lower bitrate ones.

I'm not completely paranoid about quality, I swear I can hear a difference!!!!

It is called the placebo affect, look it up.

I'm not making a blind assumption, there is a difference in how well instruments sound and how much detail is captured. . .

No but you are making claims that violate the TOS here at Hydrogenaudio. As I said, look up the placebo affect. That is why you NEED to conduct a blind ABX test if you want your claims to be taken seriously. Otherwise, your post can be edited, deleted, or blocked.

Please don't be mad I'm only saying my opinion and I will take some kind of test if thats possible. I'm sorry I broke the terms/rules.

that's all I'm saying for today. . . good night.

And again, Peace!

There are differences between opinions and claims. Opinions have no place here on Hydrogenaudio when discussing this topic. Only claims can be taken seriously and claims are formed after conducting blind ABX tests, plain and simple.

You are new here so that is alright but you need to understand that what you are saying is complete nonsense unless you have the numbers to back it up. You coming on here without any proof and making these opinions/claims is like me going to some Catholic Church forums and claiming that I am Jesus. Well, I can fly, I can turn water into wine, I can heal people, I can walk on water, and I keep on dieing yet always come back. Do I have any proof for my claims? Absolutely not but that is OK as people should believe in me and trust what I am saying. Do you see where we are coming from now? You need ABX test results (valid results, don't go making them up) in order for your opinions to become claims and for you to be taken with anything other than an extremely small grain of salt.