![320 kbps vs lossless 320 kbps vs lossless](https://i.imgur.com/CL12Why.jpg)
- #320 kbps vs lossless 320kbps#
- #320 kbps vs lossless 320 kbps#
- #320 kbps vs lossless archive#
- #320 kbps vs lossless portable#
- #320 kbps vs lossless software#
And I have the lossless FLACs for my archive and home use. I currently use -V2 (~192), but I'll likely change this to -V4 or -V5 soon as it doesn't really matter on noisy airplanes, etc.
#320 kbps vs lossless portable#
My approach is to rip to lossless FLAC for home use and archive use, then create a mirror library of mp3 files for my iphone/ipad/ipod for portable use. Keep in mind that I have age 60+ ears (likely damaged from many loud rock concerts in the early 1970s (front row, The Who, circa 1971!!). There are a few things I've been able to ABX lossy to lossless of certain types of music up to about 256, and then I can't distinguish.
#320 kbps vs lossless 320kbps#
If you want even better sound quality with the same file size: 320kbps AAC. So if you want to reduce file size without sacrificing sound quality go for AAC. I can say that on a decent home system, I've done ABX (blind comparisons) of 192kbps mp3 vs lossless FLAC on some rock & roll tracks and not been able to distinguish the two. Ive done some comparisons and found that 256kbps AAC was the same or better quality than 320kbps MP3. For pop music played in a car, on headphones on a train, etc. Or you can try Apple Lossless for your peace of mind and transcode to lossy formats to satisfy different needs.Can people hear the difference between 128 vs 320 kbps?In what context and what type of music.
![320 kbps vs lossless 320 kbps vs lossless](https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/tidal.png)
If you want to use LAME MP3, you should really take advantage of its VBR presets that have been heavily tested for transparency.
#320 kbps vs lossless 320 kbps#
You can also take advantage of such an archive by using it to transcode to lossy formats like MP3 for your portable players, which still don't yet have the kind of storage space required to carry full libraries of lossless files.įrankly, 320 kbps with LAME MP3 is overkill, and I think that it will very likely sound exactly the same as Apple Lossless to you. It can be very useful, however, if you want to keep a permanent digital archive of your music for in-home streaming. The catch is, as you discovered, that it results in larger file sizes. Kbps is generally called Bit-rate, Bit-rate is the number of bits that the computer needs to process in a second, a single application of 128 Kbps music requires the computer to be handling 128000 bits per second (because 1 Kbps 1000 bits per second), similar to 320 Kbps music, the computer must handle a higher level of 320000 bits per second. Apple Lossless will always be transparent. Instead of relying on a psycho-acoustic model that may not work for everyone's ears, it uses alghorithyms similar to those used in compressed ZIP files. MP3 is a lossy format, which means that the encoder tries to make the music transparent (that is, perceptually equal in quality to the original uncompressed source) by permanently throwing away data that its psycho-acoustic model tells it is inaudible to the human ear.Īpple Lossless is a lossless format, which means that it never loses any data from the original file. AAC has not been as extensively tested, but what testing has been done has shown it to reach transparency for most people somewhere around 192 kbps, depending on the music and equipment. LAME's VBR presets, for example, have been developed and tested over a very long period of time and have been shown to be transparent for most people on most equipment. Some codecs have been heavily tested, however. Buying better quality speakers can also expose artifacts that you wouldn't have noticed at lower bitrates. That's why there's really no "one-size fits all" standard in the lossy audio world, because each person's ears are different, and the different codecs produce different kinds of audio artifacts that different people may find more or less noticable. There are some compatibility issues (Ogg Vorbis is open source, with one of the reasons behind its development being to create a patent-free codec, unlike MP3 and AAC), but each codec was developed primarily to try to out-do the others.įor any given person, the bitrate at which they achieve transparency will probably be different for each lossy codec, because the different codecs throw away different information.
#320 kbps vs lossless software#
Because they are as close as you can get to "pure audio" on your computer, they have the widest compatibility with different software and hardware, and so are important in developing professional audio, software, and in some professional archival situations.ĪAC, MP3, MPC, Ogg Vorbis, and other lossy audio codecs all try to do the same thing: make transparent audio at ever-lower bitrates. WAV and AIFF, for example, are formats used to encode uncompressed CD quality audio (Stereo, 44.100 Hz, 1440 kbps).
![320 kbps vs lossless 320 kbps vs lossless](https://avatar-nct.nixcdn.com/playlist/2016/06/20/d/8/4/2/1466394224494_500.jpg)
To some extent it is all of those things.