How much does Audio formats impact sound quality

[Sylar]

When it comes to music I was wondering, how much of a difference does it make when listening to music compressed to 128 kbps mp3 as compared to 320 kbps. Most of my music is @ 128 kbps mp3. I can make out a significant difference in quality when i listen to 96 kbps as compared to 128, but not so with 320. Currently I listen using desktop speakers for comp or using my iPod.

More importantly, how much of an improvement can I expect with a 'decent' receiver & speaker. When I audition I would be comparing in a completely different acoustic environment (professionally set up, of course) & different hardware too (my desktop speakers in my room to an acoustically set up room with a 'HiFi system').
Hence I I would find it difficult to judge. So am trying to get an idea of what I could leverage out of a HiFi system

 

[corey]

Wow, these are large questions. I have some short answers.

For mp3's you do get better results as you move up in bit rate, but there are diminishing returns. You've noted the difference between 96 & 128 kbps, and there's a difference between 128 & 160 kbps, just not as great.

With better hardware (player, receiver, speakers, subs) the difference in bit rate becomes more pronounced, but there are diminishing returns here too, as you invest in better hardware.

Most people, even with good hardware, can't tell the difference in bit rates once you get up to 256 kbps. (in a blind test).

For myself, I rip CD's using LAME with the v0 option, which gives a VBR about 245 kbps.

How much improvement can you expect? It depends.....

 

[its phillip]

Wow, 128kbps mp3...that was normal back in the 90s!

I am definitely not a fan of low-bitrate mp3...like corey said - when it comes to mp3s, v0 is the way to go. It should be transparent for most. You need to re-rip your music and compare it yourself to see if you notice the difference. Of course, my opinion is that you should rip to flac. Storage is dirt cheap nowadays (2TB for $70), and a flac is only ~4x the size of a v0 mp3.

 

[zhimbo]

...Currently I listen using desktop speakers for comp or using my iPod.

With typical computer speakers, and typical ear buds, 128kbps may well sound perfectly fine. With an upgrade of headphones (nothing outrageous - a decent pair in the $70-$90 range, let's say) I find 128kbps distractingly bad - compression artifacts are easily heard. Even 160 is a big jump in quality and 192kbps can be quite good, certainly for pop recordings or non-critical listening. 256, as Corey says, is going to be indistinguishable from lossless for most people with most material. I use 320kbps, but lossless formats are getting easier to use (they used to be "specialty" formats and not widely supported) and some VBR settings are often preferred to a set-rate.

 

[j_garcia]

Like the others, anything below (including) 192k will generally have audible degradation on a decent system I have found. I only rip at 256 unless I know it wil be for headphones only, them 192k tends to be ok.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Go to live music concert and compare what you heard with same or similar recorded music (preferably jazz or classic) You'll see the difference.
Decent stereo could started even without receiver with couple of active monitors.

 

[its phillip]

You guys ripping to CBR should really try using v0 - the same or better quality, in a smaller package

 

[Sylar]

Wow, 128kbps mp3...that was normal back in the 90s!

... my opinion is that you should rip to flac.

Does that mean uncompressed will sound better to 320 kbps? or is it negligible.

Space is not the problem, time is. Takes a lot of time searching and downloading.
Have been slowly moving to 320 kbps. Many 'one hit wonders' from 80's & 90's are not easy to find in 320 kbps.

256, as Corey says, is going to be indistinguishable from lossless for most people with most material.

That answered my question

 

[mtrycrafts]

Go to live music concert and compare what you heard with same or similar recorded music (preferably jazz or classic) You'll see the difference.
Decent stereo could started even without receiver with couple of active monitors.

Yes, but that difference could be many factors besides bit rate related.

 

[pzaur]

Personally, I find that each track has it's own limitations for rock and such. If I start hearing artifacts in the percussion (cymbals, triangles, tambourines), then I know the setting is too low. I find most artifacts begin to show in the highest pitched instrument and work their way down.

For classical or jazz, never. Only lossless formats for those.

-pat

 

[TLS Guy]

Personally, I find that each track has it's own limitations for rock and such. If I start hearing artifacts in the percussion (cymbals, triangles, tambourines), then I know the setting is too low. I find most artifacts begin to show in the highest pitched instrument and work their way down.

For classical or jazz, never. Only lossless formats for those.

-pat

Absolutely correct.

Whether you can tell the degradation of a lossy format depends on two factors.

The source material

The resolution of the play back chain especially the speakers.

For choral music and Grand opera, all lossy formats are wanting. Even DVD is not good enough for opera.

Recently a member came over to hear my system. His source material was mp3 on a thumb drive. He thought the material adequate, but just could not believe how bad and lifeless is sounded when a gigantic lens was turned on it.

Fortunately I have lots of material, and he brought one SACD, so he could see it was his lossy recordings causing the uninteresting bland lifeless sound.