3 ms·

128k mp3s haven't been "common" in years. Every store I know that sells MP3s gives you either 320k CBR, or a high quality VBR encoding. Neither is perceptively

128k mp3s haven't been "common" in years. Every store I know that sells MP3s gives you either 320k CBR, or a high quality VBR encoding. Neither is perceptively different (by humans) from a CD, even with the best equipment. And most stores are now offering lossless downloads anyway. If you're making your own MP3s, don't make 128k MP3s. Later codecs (AAC, Vorbis, Opus, etc.) all allow you to use fewer bits for the same quality.

smackeyacky 5y ago
I still have a NAS full of nasty 128kbps MP3 files I really should just delete. All that time ripping CDs 20 years ago wasn't a complete waste of time, the MP3 player I had only had a tiny amount of memory and the fledgling NAS I had didn't have a lot of disk space as it was. Time to delete them has come though, funnily it's much quicker to <arrgh me hearties> CDs I already own than rip them myself.
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  I prefer to rip my own CDs if only because I don't trust someone else to do it right.
  - tinbucket 5y ago
    I’m the opposite: I trust others to do it better than I can.
Thorrez 5y ago
>Neither is perceptively different (by humans) from a CD, even with the best equipment. There are certain trouble files that can't be encoded well with MP3 even at 320k. I once successfully ABXY tested one such file 20 times in a row.
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  These kind of examples are always encoder specific, and even encoder setting specific. They are never general rules.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    You're probably right to a large degree, but this page has people saying the file is distinguishable with multiple different audio formats even: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120193.0 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120193.0
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    I have yet to find the encoder that encodes The Downward Spiral good enough where I can't AB test it from the CD. The album is neigh unlistenable on Youtube. That particular disc seems to have been made at the cross roads time during which seamless natural-sounding digital effects were possible in music, but were still blocky enough in implementation to cause some type of Moire effect with digital encoders.
Zababa 5y ago
> Neither is perceptively different (by humans) from a CD, even with the best equipment I think there is way more individual differences here than what some people assume. I have a few friends that often perceive way more details in images and image quality than me, to the point that some compressions that are fine for me will bother them. I think the same is true with sound: some people will benefit from CD quality, and some others won't. That may also depend on the music that people listen to. If the tests are not made with the music you listen to, is the result the same? Is there a way to say "there's no difference for song X, so there is also no difference for song Y"?

smackeyacky 5y ago

I still have a NAS full of nasty 128kbps MP3 files I really should just delete. All that time ripping CDs 20 years ago wasn't a complete waste of time, the MP3 player I had only had a tiny amount of memory and the fledgling NAS I had didn't have a lot of disk space as it was. Time to delete them has come though, funnily it's much quicker to <arrgh me hearties> CDs I already own than rip them myself.

LeoPanthera 5y ago
I prefer to rip my own CDs if only because I don't trust someone else to do it right.
- tinbucket 5y ago
  I’m the opposite: I trust others to do it better than I can.

Thorrez 5y ago

>Neither is perceptively different (by humans) from a CD, even with the best equipment. There are certain trouble files that can't be encoded well with MP3 even at 320k. I once successfully ABXY tested one such file 20 times in a row.

LeoPanthera 5y ago
These kind of examples are always encoder specific, and even encoder setting specific. They are never general rules.
- Thorrez 5y ago
  You're probably right to a large degree, but this page has people saying the file is distinguishable with multiple different audio formats even: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120193.0 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120193.0
- dotancohen 5y ago
  I have yet to find the encoder that encodes The Downward Spiral good enough where I can't AB test it from the CD. The album is neigh unlistenable on Youtube. That particular disc seems to have been made at the cross roads time during which seamless natural-sounding digital effects were possible in music, but were still blocky enough in implementation to cause some type of Moire effect with digital encoders.

Zababa 5y ago

> Neither is perceptively different (by humans) from a CD, even with the best equipment I think there is way more individual differences here than what some people assume. I have a few friends that often perceive way more details in images and image quality than me, to the point that some compressions that are fine for me will bother them. I think the same is true with sound: some people will benefit from CD quality, and some others won't. That may also depend on the music that people listen to. If the tests are not made with the music you listen to, is the result the same? Is there a way to say "there's no difference for song X, so there is also no difference for song Y"?