So you're looking for an MP3 player but don't want to be a t

[Neddie]

I dont get how people can/think they can tell the difference between 128 and 320. To me it's just wasted disk space.

You can tell the difference, especially on music with a large audible range. You just need speakers that can handle said range to begin with - everything sounds like arse on earbuds.

[BaNa]

I dont get how people can/think they can tell the difference between 128 and 320. To me it's just wasted disk space.

You can tell the difference, especially on music with a large audible range. You just need speakers that can handle said range to begin with - everything sounds like arse on earbuds.

I'd advise anyone wanting quality headphones to look round at http://www.head-fi.org/, its a forum about said topic. Being a member there can lead to spending binges, so be aware.

and no, not everything sounds like arse on earbuds. :p

[[Krogoth86]]

Now imagine how diffcult it gets when you want your new player to have Ogg support...

[Comp1337]

I dont get how people can/think they can tell the difference between 128 and 320. To me it's just wasted disk space.

it really depends on your soundcard imo
My XFi does 128 great, but when i run linux i have to use my onboard.. Its not pretty

[Muzic]

Generally my music is around 128-320. Most in the mid and lower with a couple albums in the higher. I dont hear much of a difference because my ears aren't that sensitive anymore. I mean anything lower than 128 hurts. But if your headphones suck your music is going to sound pretty bad anyways. Or if you have shit speakers. I mean I have a miles davis album at 128 and it sounded shit. I downloaded the FLAC which was like 700 something, and then made it into 190 and there was a giant difference. I just watch the file rates and what they were encoded from.

My Pink Floyd Darkside of the Moon (cd) sounded alot better than this 190kb version I downloaded. And then I ripped the CD and made it into 190KB. It sounded the same as the CD still but alot better than the downloaded version. So in my opinion it just matters about the original source.

I fucking lost my Westone UM1's which were the best things i've ever heard. Damn those were fucking awesome.

I'd like to get my self an 30gb Creative Widescreen

[SwiftSpear]

Caydr spends too much time writing tldr forum posts to make a mod

And what do I do if I do want to be a trendy whore?

[Forboding Angel]

If you are using decent hardware (I have a live 5.1 that cost 50 bucks 5 years ago, so comeon guys, there is no excuse for using onboard sound), the difference between 128-320 is negligible. Oh there is a difference, but most humans will have trouble telling exactly what the difference is, and the majority of humans would not even know there was a difference unless they were told.

However, for soem reason ppl have decided that their epenis is not long enough if useing 128 and MUST use 320. (I prefer 192 myself).

Additionally, most ppl could not tell you what the actual difference between the quality settings if you beat it into them with a stick.


As sound is compressed you start to loose spectrums. Imagine that if you have a bitrate of 512 you are using a 50 band EQ on your stereo. As you compress the music you start loosing bands (they get averaged between the two nearest, not actually lost) (In other words you can't adjust that band anymore), say at 320 you have not compressed to a 40 band EQ and at 128 you have compressed to a 20 band EQ. As i said the frequencies get averaged, not outright lost. Yes I can tell the difference between the two, but for normal listening I laugh at idiots who baaaw about 320. The person who knows the least will always brag the loudest.

As I said, yes there is a difference. No most people will never be capable of actually telling the difference (Actually I can hear the spectrums lost myself, but on the other hand I have far better hearing than most ppl and can hear extremely high frequency tones). If someone wants to waste the disk space for 320, then go ahead, you're an idiot. It 128 sounds like crap to you then that is because your sound hardware sucks ass, because CD's top out at 128, and Cassettes at 50-64ish (depends on the condition of the tape really).

As I said, I prefer 192 myself but really I could honestly care less. 512 and 320 are what I use for recording master tracks. Incidentally, vinyl quality rating is right around 320, however, most record players are sucky enough that you never actually get that quality, plus the fact that every single time that you play that record, you degrade it's quality. If you actually had a record player that could get full quality sound broadcast from a record... then you're an idiot for spending 400 dollars on a record player.


Trendy whore? WHo cares? The ipod is cool. I don't care for them personally because of the copy protection and I don't like itunes, but damn... admit it, the ipod is a really really cool gadget.

[Peet]

It 128 sounds like crap to you then that is because your sound hardware sucks ass, because CD's top out at 128,

Utterly false:

The Red Book specifies the physical parameters and properties of the CD, the optical "stylus" parameters, deviations and error rate, modulation system (Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation, EFM) and error correction (Cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, CIRC), and subcode channels and graphics.

It also specifies the form of digital audio encoding: 2-channel signed 16-bit PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz.

The frequency response of audio CD, from 20 Hz to 22.05 kHz

Bit rate = 44,100 samples per second ├âÔÇö 16 bits per sample ├âÔÇö 2 channels = 1411.2 kbps.

While better sound hardware may make things sound better in general, I find it actually enhances the crappiness of <192kbit audio because it emphasizes the contrast between it and higher bitrates.

[clumsy_culhane]

mm ill jsut add that i have a clix2 4gb, and i find that it has better sound than an ipod (using same song(s), decent headphones)

And as for compression, all my legal stuff is 320, while my torrented stuff is flac or 256 +

[Forboding Angel]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_hig ... page=0%2C0

Interesting Article

[erasmus]

i own a cowon d2 and a pair of ER-4Ps

i have about 100GB of music that i rotate through, most of it is 320kbps with maybe 15% FLAC mainly classical recordings

nice site: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/
best site: http://www.head-fi.org/

[rattle]

Classical: FLAC/320 kbps, everything else ~192 kbps or VBR. Personally I prefer VBR.

[BaNa]

i had a hueg flac downloading binge once back when i used to have normal interweb, so now most of my music (~400gigs) is in flac. flac is definitely the way to go if you have a good enough rig. Surround sound cards give fairly bad stereo sound usually, old creatives resample the 16 bit music to 20 or 24 bits, which is not good. (btw, external dac's are the way to go for yummies)

[Caydr]

nice site: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/

lol, I clicked on that and a split second later autoplay for my moo2 disc started up, I was like, "no way, they put moo on a website?"

[REVENGE]

VBR with an avg target of >200 is pretty good, I use it when I can.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

what the hell? how can anyone listen to 128 and not be appalled. it took me ages to get all my fav albums in 320kbps but its worth it for having output that dosnt sound like an old woman choking on a chickenbone

[DandyGnome]

What bitrate sounds good to you will depend on how well you hear, how easy to compress your music is, and what sound system you are playing it on. For example 128 can sound fine if it is coming off of my built in laptop speakers but I wouldn't think of playing it over the Meyers M'elody line array in the theater that I work at. Or stuff that sounds fine to one of my bosses who is 80 something and so can't hear high pitches can sound horrible to me as I still hear up to around 16-17kHz. Also theater organ music tends to compress badly as there are so many low and high pitches that are so essential to how it sounds that tend to be lost both to compression and bad sound systems. However a piano solo can sound fine at high compression as it is very simple.
As to music players you might just be out of luck. I have yet to see something that matches your specs though you might try looking at phones as those are getting capable and seem to have more variety.

[Pxtl]

VBR with an avg target of >200 is pretty good, I use it when I can.

Too many apps get stupid with VBR MP3, unfortunately.

[Crayfish]

I can tell the difference between 128 kbps mp3 and CD tracks if I AB them (through creative X-fi and quite good philips stereo / woofer speakers). I have some musical background. The difference isn't massive though, it's mostly in the lower bass register and the very high treble which to be honest, my ears are starting to lose anyway... 320 kbps is a slight improvement but still lacks nuances of bass to my ears.

Chances are though that without audiophile hardware or training most people would be barely able to tell the difference. Considering the space saving mp3 compression is pretty good.

Might be tempted to a lossless format one day... I have 80 Gb of music right now though and until I reduce it to my aim of 30 Gb by deleting less good songs I can't afford to quadruple file sizes.

Um, more on topic, I can't see why anyone needs 160 Gb hard drive on an mp3 player. I'd be happy with 30 Gb or less and more functionality / battery life.

[Caydr]

I didn't think 128 sounded bad until I listened to music I considered really moving in a movie, but now on my computer. When I realized those distortions, blended instruments, "watery" sound, and static could be heard an all my other songs as well, I bumped up to 192 kbps... I'm sure if I was really looking for it, I could still "spot" flaws, but I am rarely in an environment quiet enough to really appreciate beautiful music for all it is. IMHO if I was to go to 192 AAC it would probably be the last time I redownload-reconvert all my music again. 'Course... just to avoid the trauma that is locating good recordings of 200 songs, I'd probably use 256 just to be safe...

The reason I don't go higher now is probably rooted in the fact that I used to go to great lengths to make sure I could fit my whole collection on a 700 mb disc. To me, my 0.98 gb of music is a huge collection.