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]

Rob - I'd agree with you in technicalities.
But the main point of ABX testing in the context of HA is to see which encodes are distinguishable from the original. Since, presumably, the thing we're all aiming for is indistinguishibility from the original.
Now, I'd agree with you that if someone can tell a difference between 320 CBR and 128 CBR, it's pretty safe to assume that the 320 is closer to the original (so long as they're from the same or similar encoder, at least).

But figuring out which encodes can be differentiated from the original is closer to the point, even if not closer to the original question that Jake asked which started this thread.

[kornchild2002]

Rob - I'd agree with you in technicalities.
But the main point of ABX testing in the context of HA is to see which encodes are distinguishable from the original. Since, presumably, the thing we're all aiming for is indistinguishibility from the original.
Now, I'd agree with you that if someone can tell a difference between 320 CBR and 128 CBR, it's pretty safe to assume that the 320 is closer to the original (so long as they're from the same or similar encoder, at least).

But figuring out which encodes can be differentiated from the original is closer to the point, even if not closer to the original question that Jake asked which started this thread.

That is my whole point and I guess I shouldn't have come off so negative. I just get frustrated that we have someone come on here and tell us that the sky is green when we say that the sky is blue and then tell them to run some tests. They do run some tests but still come back with the notion that the sky is green.

Part of my problem when comparing directly between lossy formats is that one cannot tell which was closer to the actual lossless file. There have been some cases (I would be happy to point them out and even provide a sample out of my library) where a -V 2 encoded Lame mp3 actually did better than a -V 0 Lame mp3. I am not sure what caused the problem but I could hear the artifact more easily at -V 0 than -V 2 and no, the artifact is not in the lossless song. So I myself could take an ABX test with said song, distinguish between the two lossy files, but then that means nothing as theoretically the -V 2 file should produce the better results. That is why I prefer and preach ABXing between lossy and lossless formats. That way one can easily narrow down the proper encoder, format, and setting rather than comparing two lossy formats and making some educated guesses.

Oh, as for my bugger off comment, it was provoked from Jake's comment of "You guys aren't going to convince me to use a lot lower bitrates..." That right there leads me to believe that Jake is still using the 256kbps or 320kbps mindset even though he is being told otherwise and we are asking for tests. So, to me, we keep telling Jake that the sky is blue or feel free to prove us wrong with tests, Jake performs some tests, says that the sky is blue-ish, and then makes comments like the above which entirely regress what we are saying.

So I am in agreement with shadowking here as I want to see some ABX logs for -V 5, -V 4, -V 3, -V 2, and -V 0. Jake might be able to hear the difference between those files and the source lossless one. The point is that no one can truly know until they conduct a blind ABX test and from the sound of it, Jake won't be doing that as they use bitrates below their unestablished standard.

That is all I am trying to say and I am sorry if I came off negative.