192kbps vs 256kbps

K

Kopfanatic

Trooper
Guys, as i've already mentioned in another part of the forum,I'm a technical retard,so I need some help here. I've only fairly recently been downloading albums from iTUNES at, I assume 192kbps, unless its been available via iTunes plus(256kbps-whatever that means).iTUNES has now informed me that one of the albums I originally purchased(at, I assume192kbps) is now available via iTUNES plus, for a fee of course.Does anyone know if there is much difference between the two, to justify my paying extra for the same album?
 
The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality.  However, you'll only ever notice the difference between 192 and 256 if you are on a very large and impressive stereo system.  I run most of my mp3s at 192, and I have a decent stereo system.

iTunes Plus isn't worth your money.
 
So?  DRM-free only means you can play it on unlimited computers and burn it unlimited times.  Not many people use more than 5 computers or are going to burn a song to disc more than 7 times.
 
Once it's burned to disc as a CD-Audio it becomes DRM free anyway. So DRM Free is no real deal breaker.

As LC said, 192kbs is pretty much acceptable for most people.
 
DRM equals shit. You have (x) possible burning times. You burn the first time, then rip the track and it's DRM free.

If you don't want to lose quality (original -> lossy -> cdaudio -> lossy) you can always do the ripping stage into lossless codec. It's bigger, but storage is cheap nowadays.
 
All my mp3s are at 128kbps. I've heard some people claim they can hear a quality loss, but I don't. You might get some quality loss if you start with bad source material, but I get all my music from either CD or a 320kbps download, and it sounds fine when I convert that to 128.

LC is probably right - I might notice the difference on a huge stereo system. But the biggest speakers I ever use are my studio monitors, which are only 5-inch speakers. Very high quality speakers, but not large or loud enough to bring out any difference between 192 vs 128.

So consider your needs. There's no point to higher bitrate unless you have good and large speakers. If you're a headphone and computer guy like me, 192 is more than enough (since it's more than 128, which is enough).

In terms of storage: at 128, it's about 1 MB per minute of music. Get a terabyte external drive for your music (that's what I have) and you have room for a million minutes of music. That's a few hundred thousand songs (depending on song length). Or think of it this way: almost 2 years of music.

So unless you have the gear to justify higher bitrates (or you're just a fanatical audiophile), burn those high-quality sources to CD, then convert to 128 and store that on computer. You'll get 50% more music on the same disk drive.
 
My colleague is an audio freak. He has a system and acoustic configuration where you hear clear difference between 160kbps lossy codec and CD audio. Therefore he's using only lossless formats.

But hey, for us regulars good'ol MP3 is quite enough.

And since i like really loud music when using headphones, i even raise the software gain level and EQ settings on my cellphone audio player. That would screw every lossless song in terms of quality. Speaking of that, sn DoD you get a shitty overdistorted sound, on TNOTB everything is loud and clear. Mastering.
 
I clearly hear the difference on my computer between 128 kbps and 192/256 kbps.

When I am downloading stuff I always prefer (at least) 192 kbps but if I can get higher I will always do that.
I never pay for computerfiles/ITunes or whatever so all the stuff mentioned in this post has to do with getting stuff for free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top