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.

[2Bdecided]

"Can you tell the difference between 256 kbps VBR or CBR mp3's and 320 kbps mp3's?" is a rather general question. The answer is generally no, but there are some samples where it's possible.

Cheers,
David.

[Slipstreem]

"Can you tell the difference between 256 kbps VBR or CBR mp3's and 320 kbps mp3's?" is a rather general question. The answer is generally no, but there are some samples where it's possible.

Agreed. I replied "no, never" to "Do You ever use 320 kbps mp3's? I never use MP3 in CBR320, but my VBR encodings all the way down to -V5 make at least ocassional usage of blocks at 320Kbps so, in hindsight, I "lied".

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask whether people generally use CBR, VBR or even ABR with LAME and provide options more like this...

Do you use CBR? yes/no

At what bitrate generally? 320/256/192/160/128

Do you use VBR? yes/no

At which -V setting generally? 0/1/2/3/4/5

...(same questions again for ABR)...


Wouldn't that make more sense than answering a poll that seems to set out to prove one thing rather than adequately explore the available options?

If the details were collated on LAME on a version-by-version basis, it could be stickied so that people who genuinely want to be told what bitrate to use and don't want to ABX or don't have the technical know-how can just pick the most popular setting(s) from the sticky. You could put updated poll results in the WIKI, or at least provide an easy-to-find link to it on the WIKI front page.

People answering the poll would still have the chance to comment in the poll thread and explain the reasoning behind their particular choice, but they'd only be answering the poll and not having to give the same reply out to hundreds of people individually every time someone arrives who simply doesn't understand but is keen to encode into MP3, hopefully with LAME as their encoder.

It would save us from being asked the same questions and giving the same answers over and over again at least twice a week by my reckoning.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

This post has been edited by Slipstreem: Jul 31 2008, 14:45

[JAKE196]

"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."

Is that what this is about? Really? I believe I've said twice this is simply my opinion and it may not apply to everyone. . . I think I just have sensitive ears. this particular statement just popped out at me and I had to reply.

I'm not going to bother you people any more, but i just did a sound test comparing a 320 kbps mp3 and a 282 kbps mp3 of the same song and I am absolutely sure there is a difference. I am not hallucinating. Mind you, it was a very complex electronic rock song. . . most songs i suppose 256 is all you need, but I listen to a lot of complex electronic, electronic rock, alternative rock, and metal. The main things I could tell is the vocals sounded a lot more 'real' and sound effects and guitar solos sounded better. . .

If you really think that there is no difference or 320 kbps actually sounds worse, maybe your ears just aren't good enough. If you think the difference is negligible and it only worth using about 256, that's very understandable to me.

Once again, I made this thread only to express my opinion and hold the poll, not to force this idea on to you like a nazi, as you guys seem to see it. I only ask that if you have good ears and you don't have to worry about memory, consider the bitrate.

Sorry for all the hullabaloo, you guys are practically experts after all, you don't have to listen to me.

EDIT: if you want me to take a test though, I'm willing, pm me or something and i'll reply eventually. . . I don't know how to set up one.

Good bye.

This post has been edited by JAKE196: Jul 31 2008, 16:32