Difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps?

[AyuRox]

[Resolved]

So, is there even a significant difference between the 2 bitrates mentioned above? I remember in another thread that some said there was and some said there wasn't, but can any of you describe the difference? And if the difference is noticeable or significant?

I'm asking because I'm intending on buying ayu's German singles from an mp3 site called djTunes.com. On the site, you have the choice between 128 kbps or 320 kbps, but the higher bitrate costs 2-3 USD more per single. So, if there isn't a big difference between bitrates, I'd rather save some money and buy the lower bitrate mp3s.

I'm not very experienced with the whole bitrate thing, so I figured I should ask...

The older iTunes files are 128 kbps and sound fine to me, and the newer ones are 256 kbps. I don't really hear a difference, but I've never been able to campare the same song in 2 different bitrates. So I'm really not sure...

(p.s. please don't give me links to download the singles. I do not support illegal downloads.)

[ayuayu798]

To me 320kps sounds fuller and louder, it's like it's more in depth to the sound of music. I think it even picks up more beats in the song. 128 is softer and isn't able to pick up as much, sometimes it even sounds like static. However, some people don't really see much of a difference in how it sounds. But if you were to listen to the same song with the two different bitrates. I think you'd be able to tell.

[NintendoHTF1242]

If you listen to My Immortal in 128kps you get like, this static noise and the song isn't as loud sounding and you can't really hear as much. I bought the album today and ripped it in 320kps and it sounds so much clearer and there's no static sound at all.

[murasakinohana]

Yeah, 320kbps sounds louder and fuller. The bass and the other sounds, sounds more richer.

[JackieRos]

supposedly 320kbps is better quality
i dont mind any bibrate as long it sounds good even 128kbps sounds good
take yourself this test and tell me which you picked and if it sound different
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/...-test-128-320/

the downside for 320kbps is the file is bigger

[RyRyMini]

^ I got it wrong! I normally can't tell the difference, except for when I listen to my iPod in my car - it's through a cassette thing which degrades the quality a bit as it is, and 128 kbps mp3s sound a bit worse.

But if I'm just listening normally I can't tell...so if I were you, I'd go with the 128.

[emi♡]

Okay, honestly, theoretically, you aren't supposed to be able to tell the difference.

But, with all the different encoders and all the different equipment people have, not to mention whether or not you know what's going on in the music, most times (if not all), when you download stuff, there will be a big difference in the quality between a 128 and 320 rip.

About your itunes rip, back in the day, I ripped my (miss)understood CD in 128 using itunes, when I ripped it again in 320 later, there was very very little difference...so much that, I'm not even sure there was a difference. the 128 may not have been as loud...but seriously, it was really negligible. So, it really just depends.

I personally find it a little weird the site has them both in 128 and 320 and charges more for the 320...seems like they're just trying to squeeze munny out of you. That being said, they could have purposely made the 128's really low quality or something. Or there could be very little difference...I think you're kinda on your own with this one...unless someone here has personal experience with the site. Sorry

[Kingdom]

sometimes 128kbps sounds horrible. i refuse to download anything under 192

[naxxo.licious™]

Originally Posted by RyRyMini

^ I got it wrong!

Me too T_____T. My ears suck .


I think it actually depends on the quality of the speakers/earphones u have. Like, an 128 kbps mp3 will sound shittier on high quality speakers, whereas the 320 kbps one will definitely sound better.

In your case...i'd definitely buy the 320 kbps ones. Simply because it's Ayu and she deserves da best lol.

[aqua_crystal]

Originally Posted by (me)JackieRos

supposedly 320kbps is better quality
i dont mind any bibrate as long it sounds good even 128kbps sounds good
take yourself this test and tell me which you picked and if it sound different
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/...-test-128-320/

the downside for 320kbps is the file is bigger

I got it right!! Yay! Although I have to admit, there was barely any difference.

Originally Posted by NintendoHTF1242

If you listen to My Immortal in 128kps you get like, this static noise and the song isn't as loud sounding and you can't really hear as much. I bought the album today and ripped it in 320kps and it sounds so much clearer and there's no static sound at all.

Yeah, that's true. Some songs like My Immortal, which have lots of bass & stuff will only sound good in 320kbps. But apart from that, it never really makes a difference.

[JackieRos]

see no difference
ehe awesome you got it right
i just chosed whichever and got it right

[Picaflor 7/4]

Originally Posted by AyuRox

(p.s. please don't give me links to download the singles. I do not support illegal downloads.)

awe well good for you, supporting ayu with money, you're the only one. ^^ everyone else on this site is sue/lawsuit worthy, yay! lol. jk

There isn't a significant difference in ear. If you hear them you won't notice a real difference, but 320 is higher quality, the bigger the kbps number, the higher the quality. but 320 takes up more space on your computer (just a little), and have greater fidelity.

[ayu1m]

Flac all the way, ~900 kbps and I'm happy.

[noidea]

Am I the only one who got the test right? The drums were much clearer in the 320k version. And I even got the difference on speakers that costed 5 Euros.

To answer your question: Yes, there is a difference, but how big the difference is depends mostly on the following things:
1) Your ears, over 80% of all people between 10 and 50 have hearing problems(including me)(mostly without knowing) so for many people it doesnt make a giant difference.
2) Your speakers/headphones/earphones, you wont hear a big difference on, say, these headphones that come with the iPod
3) the device you use to play/soundcard(if you use a computer) theres a giant difference between the sound of bad and good mp3 players for example
4) the songs, simpler songs will have less difference, but songs that are full with many instruments and a big range will sound very different
5) the encoding, how good a mp3 file of the same bitrate is differs depending on how good the encoder is, because mp3 cuts out noice and the encoder needs to find WHAT it has to cut out, some do a better job, some a worse

so, you can basically say: yes, there is a difference, but in some listening enviroments and cases there is only minimal difference, for that website of yours....i would rather try to get these of ebay or something, even if it takes longer and might be more expensive, even 320k mp3 is way worse than the original already(CD has 1411 kbits, vinyl around 4500 kbits)

[AyuRox]

thx for all the info!

Its just so hard to decide... I wanna get the higher quality mp3s, but I'm way too cheap! (lol ) In a little while I'll take the bitrate quiz think above, and hopefully that'll help me decide.

If anyone still has anything to add, feel free.

[zyoeru]

I can't even hear the difference. 128 sounded better quality to me than 320...so I'd just get 128. Usually the sound difference is too small to be noticed by human ears.
Everything over 128 sound fantastic to me.

[MBAL]

the way i describe 128 is in sharp sounds in the music and the "S" sounds in the lyrics u hear a noticible metalic sound thats annoying

but anything over 192 i cant really tell the difference

[Miss Corleone]

I've gone through this with many ppl. some do understand ,some refuse to.
listen , there isnt a difference unless you have like some super amazingly developed bionic ear and you are able to hear sound frequencies beyond the normal (standar , average if you will) ear.

look , i work in pro recording studio ,i'm surrounded by muscians and audio engineers so i know what i'm talking about.
in your case friend , what you want is the 128kbps audio files. aint no point in getting 320 cuz you'll get "more bass,louder sound" that's crap. dont get it. all you'll accomplish is spend more money and use up more hard drive space.
128 IS CD QUALITY , and you can see that everywhere . from the most fancy pro recording studio software to Windows Media Player.

"then why iTunes asks me if i want 128 or 320?"
already awnsered that above and also simply cuz IS BUSINESS to them ppl.
honestly i dont know where ppl got this idea or myth about 320 kbps
(same with 192 or anything else above 128 for that matter) but big companies know how to take advantage of that.
you can ask any audio engineer if you dont believe me or look it up on the net on a truly reliable site not sites like yahoo awnsers

i know some ppl might disagree with me but whatever i know what i'm telling you is truthful and right. and honestly i've been through this many times with many ppl some think about it ,some just start bashing me and start talking back like apes. please i dont wanna go through those situations again. IF in any case anyone wants to TALK i'll awnser or discuss , debate etc. if not i'll just ignore ape-like replies.
anyways , hope this was helpful to ya ^^

[Tony G]

320 is better than 128, but as a lot of people said you can rarely tell the difference unless you're playing it on a big speaker system. If you're listening to these songs on an iPod or something, 128 is fine. If you're planning to play them on big stereo speakers/car speakers/subwoofers, the 320 will be better.

I prefer VBR to be honest, better quality at a smaller filesize.

[Chiharo]

What Miss Corleone said.

Try ripping your CD at 320 kbps, then to 128 and tell me if you can hear the difference.