128k conversion of MP3's any loss?

[P. Aaron]

I-Phone-Pad-Pod offers this option to compress or convert your data laden audio files to a space saving 128k file for those devices.

Any of you audio-philes do this and notice any loss of fidelity?

[Febs]

With good modern encoders, 128 kbps files created from the original source are generally transparent or very close to it.

However, I would not transcode existing MP3s to a lower bitrate, because you're then going through the lossy encoding process twice, and artifacts can become very noticeable quickly.

[The_Janitor]

I hear a lot of loss at 128. You should be able to set the rip settings to 320, which (to my ears) sounds much better and won't eat up too much space. Not lossless, but pretty good, and I'm pretty fussy about this kind of thing.

However, if you're listening on those ****** ipod earbuds it probably won't make a difference.

[RCCollins]

I've always noticed a lot of loss at 128. Have you considered variable bitrate?

[Duckwater]

I notice a loss at anything below 800 or so, I can deal with 320 when it's the only quality I can find.

[TigerInATrance]

I'd love a device that could handle a lossless format like FLAC and hold my 600+ album collection, but there's nothing that will so I convert to either 320k for MP3 or AAC. I haven't used AAC in a while though, since I feel like MP3 sounds better.

I would never want to listen to 128k since I can absolutely hear the garbage in the higher frequencies.

[jmattis]

128 is not transparent. 190ish, maybe depending on your ears. What bit rate do you have your files stored at now? I wouldn't worry about downsizing them for your device it if I were you (unless you keep everything as apple lossless on your computer). It just takes way too long to go through that process. I'd rather keep the files as they are and move them around a bit more if you can't keep everything on your phone.

With how big storage is getting, I keep all my mp3s at either 256 or 320 kpbs in addition to ripping all my CDs to lossless flacs. I don't get to keep nearly everything I have on my phone, but I also don't think that's necessary. I wind up swapping albums out on my phone fairly often. Like we did in the good old days, with CDs in our cars.

[yodedude2]

yes, but i'm no audiophile.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by The_Janitor

I hear a lot of loss at 128

Originally Posted by RCCollins

I've always noticed a lot of loss at 128. H

Originally Posted by Duckwater

I notice a loss at anything below 800 or so, I can deal with 320 when it's the only quality I can find.

I used to think the same thing, until I did some extensive ABX testing. It turned out that the files where I was hearing the problems were very old MP3s created with crappy early MP3 encoders. When I used a good encoder like LAME, much to my own surprise, I wasn't able to distinguish 128 kbps VBR files from the original. And that was in roughly 2006-2007 -- encoders have gotten even better since then.

Originally Posted by RCCollins

Have you considered variable bitrate?

My recollection is that AAC (which is what Apple uses natively and presumably the target format the OP is referring to) is VBR.

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Originally Posted by Duckwater

I notice a loss at anything below 800 or so, I can deal with 320 when it's the only quality I can find.

I seriously doubt that. Care to put that claim to the test? I'll rip a CD to Wav files, then encode one of the tracks to MP3 @ 320, then convert it back to Wav, and post it along with the original Wav. We'll see if you can pick the MP3.

Humans can't tell the difference at 320.

[topo morto]

For me, generally (and there are exceptions)

128 - usually just about good enough to enjoy the music, but very noticable artifacts and nastiness.

192 - I would notice the difference, but perfectly pleasant to listen to

320 - fine, and wouldn't always notice the difference.

[Ebolution]

Originally Posted by TigerInATrance

I'd love a device that could handle a lossless format like FLAC and hold my 600+ album collection, but there's nothing that will so I convert to either 320k for MP3 or AAC. I haven't used AAC in a while though, since I feel like MP3 sounds better.

I would never want to listen to 128k since I can absolutely hear the garbage in the higher frequencies.

maybe try rockbox on ipod ...
fantastic ...

160gb ... maybe 400+ albums

[mbeall]

Do the testing yourself. I tend to notice degradation @128K and sometimes 192K when compared to their original source, usually CDs, so I have a preference for 320K but that's just me, your hearing/perception may differ. Do the A/B test yourself and see if it matters and select the next highest bit rate from where you notice the degradation. However, I will say that given the declining cost of data storage these days and the ease of transferring files from device to device I don't see the purpose for high compression codecs and lo-res bit rates any more. Back when a 20G hard drive cost $100 it made sense, now that a terrabyte can be had for around $100, not so much.

[topo morto]

Remember that this is all dependent on the material being encoded too. I've heard some files I liked better on 128...

[Duckwater]

Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-

I seriously doubt that. Care to put that claim to the test? I'll rip a CD to Wav files, then encode one of the tracks to MP3 @ 320, then convert it back to Wav, and post it along with the original Wav. We'll see if you can pick the MP3.

Humans can't tell the difference at 320.

Well I bet with good modern encoding I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But when I download music at variable bitrates and listen through my slightly hi-fi system, I notice many differences dynamically. The biggest difference for me is ear fatigue, generally low bitrate files will strain my ears much faster.

[Duckwater]

Originally Posted by topo morto

Remember that this is all dependent on the material being encoded too. I've heard some files I liked better on 128...

True.

[TheEmptyCell]

I'm usually listening to music on a portable device through a car stereo or a crappy speaker in the kitchen at work so I'll rip it down to 128... Doesn't make any difference to me in those situations. Vinyl sounds so much better, but I can deal with lower quality, I'm not a d**k about it.

[DWBass]

Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-

I seriously doubt that. Care to put that claim to the test? I'll rip a CD to Wav files, then encode one of the tracks to MP3 @ 320, then convert it back to Wav, and post it along with the original Wav. We'll see if you can pick the MP3.

Humans can't tell the difference at 320.

+1

I've fooled quite a few myself! Good encoding depends on the source file and quality of the encoder. Most modern encoders are quite good. Most cd's already have anomolies from the start. The only true test would probably be an orchestra professionally recorded without any mastering otherwise what are folks comparing to?

[OldDog52]

256 is the lowest that's bearable. 320 is pretty decent. 128 is garbage.

ALAC is your friend if you really care about quality.

[Phil Smith]

There is no modern encoding "magic" that's going to make a 128K encoded file have the same fidelity as a 320K encoded file. The first place I usually hear the difference is in the crispness of the cymbals and the horns.