128 vs 192 kbps

Guys, I need help. I can't spot much differences between 128 kbps or 192 kbps, and I know 192 is better, but it sounds just like 128 to me. Any noticeable differences with you all?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.codinghorror.com/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What kind of headphones are you using.

both 128 and 192 are not great bitrates. 192 is going to sound okay if you're casually listening through laptop speakers or chincy earbuds, but if you're aiming to hear 95% of what you really want to hear in your music, you should be aiming for 256, V0, or 320kb.

For PC I'm using Turtle Beach X-12
For mp3 I'm using lacebuds.

...

>le chop chop master onion faec
Please give me a real answer.

Use Opus @ 128, it's even better than mp3 V0

Not if you have beats by dre. 192kbps will be perfect

blog.codinghorror.com/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment/

>Anyway, between the anomalous 160kbps result and the blink-and-you'll-miss-it statistical difference between the 192kbps result and the raw CD audio, I'm comfortable calling this one as I originally saw it. The data from this experiment confirms what I thought all along: for pure listening, the LAME defaults of 192kbps variable bit rate encoding do indeed provide a safe, optimal aural bang for the byte – even dogs won't be able to hear the difference between 192kbps VBR MP3 tracks and the original CD.

Lame post. It's not better.

Is it possible that the 192kbps song isn't actually 192kbps? People can edit the tag. It might be another 128lbps song or something closer to that.

Of course it is noticeable. Even 192 vs 320 is noticeable to me.

320 vs FLAC is a meme though.

Using HD558 btw

I'm recording mp3s from OBS and making them 320kbps mp3s from Vegas Pro, then scale them down to 192 or 128 kbps

I just want to know if there is a noticable difference between the two.

Well, not just mp3s, I'm recording from Spotify.

No, I should totally make them lossless FLAC with each song exceeding 20 MB.

There should be a noticeable difference, yes. I'm not sure why you can't hear it though.

Do you hear the difference between 320 and 192? Also, some songs are better for hearing differences in quality than others.

I always use 320 kbps for rendering songs into mp3 files. I just need the lower bitrates for my 4gb mp3 player. Not sure if the difference matters.

This is bait.

>Do you hear the difference between 320 and 192?
I generally can't hear any difference but for my peace of mind I'd prefer to go with v0 (around 250-270kbps vbr).

Maybe it isn't. Some people have no idea that on every lossy to lossy re-encoding some quality is lost.

I'm aware of that fact. Just I don't want it to sound like total dog ass.
>bait
Should I render all my music as .WAV files andhave them not fit on my 16GB flash drive, too?

>I don't want it to sound like total dog ass
If you can't tell difference, then it doesn't.

I can tell the difference between 64 kbps and 128, not 128 and 192. So it shouldn't matter much.
And yes, I can hear a difference between 320 kbps, but that is too much for this 2011 tier chinese mp3 player.