received quality in speakers models

[farjami]

higher than which bitrate can't be detected by:

1- headphone (mini, large, etc)

2-desktop stereo speakers(for example: genius SP-G16)

3-desktop stereo speakers (large and ver high quality)

you can look at this good text to understand what i say
that is about mp3:
64 kb/s (19.2X compression)
At this bit rate, often called AM radio quality or voice quality, a one-hour CD compresses to only about 30 MB. Sound quality, however, is noticeably sub-par, even when played on inexpensive computer speakers. Use this bit rate only for encoding voice-only audio, for which it is perfectly acceptable.

128 kb/s (9.6X compression)
At this bit rate, often inaccurately called FM radio quality, a one-hour CD compresses to about 60 MB, or 1 MB/min. Sound quality may be indistinguishable from a CD when played on inexpensive computer speakers, but the difference is readily apparent with good speakers or headphones. Most pirated music on the Web is encoded at 128 kb/s. We think this bit rate falls unfortunately in the middle—not good enough to be "good," and not small enough to be "small." We would never use it to encode classical music, but many people find it good enough for rock.

256 kb/s (4.8X compression)
At this bit rate, which really is FM radio quality, a one-hour CD compresses to about 120 MB. Sound quality is, for many people, nearly indistinguishable from a CD, even when played on good-quality computer speakers or headphones. We recommend this bit rate for all but the most discerning listeners using top-quality computer speakers in a quiet environment

320 kb/s (3.8X compression)
At this bit rate, usually called CD quality, a one-hour CD compresses to about 150 MB. Nearly everyone finds 320 kb/s MP3 files effectively indistinguishable from CD audio. Discerning listeners with top-notch equipment can usually discriminate between them, often describing the MP3 audio subjectively as "lacking sparkle in the highs" or something similar. We can't tell the difference, though, and recommend this bit rate for those who listen to MP3s on good home audio equipment.

[buzzqw]

only one answer: try yourself

My stereo is different from your also my headphone.

these guidelines is corrected but with very expensise equipment and special prepared room all can change

BHH

EDIT:
and PLEASE USE THE SEARCH FUCTION

thanks

[farjami]

i have used search very deeply but i didn't find my request at all.

[buzzqw]

searching and reading varius, even not fully related, question&answer would lead you to know that quality is always a personal taste.

happy hunting in this awesome forums !

BHH

[Mug Funky]

you could also look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ and read up about ABX tests, and some of the (extremely) comprehensive listening tests performed there.

basically the bitrate needed for transparency (ie no perceptible difference between original and encoded file under double-blind test) varies quite a lot with the type of content (type of music, or soundtrack, etc).

a good rule of thumb is that most codecs come out transparent at around 190 - 210 kbps average.

on the other hand, some samples need much more bitrate to sound good (problem sounds, such as applause, tuba, or the "fatboy" sample). in fact, there's data that suggests the "fatboy" sample cannot be transparently encoded in mp3 (which has a max of 320kbps) at all, though my ears aren't nearly good enough to make the call myself (and it's very tiring listening to it at high volume tens of times in 1 session).

[raquete]

farjami,
ABX tests is cool if you do for yourself.
results from other people(in my opinion) are good but i always ask: "where they are listening? have quality in the amplifiers,headphones,speakers,etc to do the test? how much the person can hear?" and lots more.
i'm not against but we hear different(you,me and everybody).
...in the end with ABX or not,....all are using the ears.:p
i think that is different relax and hear the music than (tense)"search for troubles"(trying to find and click).

as you asked for opinion,my is:
when everyone accepts it and says "128kbps mp3s are cd quality", I die a little more on the inside.
don't encode mp3 less than 256.(vbr 150k-240k is one good option too for space/quality).

best regards.
;)

[mod]

don't encode mp3 less than 256.(vbr 150k-240k is one good option too for space/quality).
I disagree. Ok that mp3 is really lossy under 200, but I think it depends also on the quality of the encoding. I know ppl that uses fastest compression and 320kbps, and the result isn't really different from my 160kbps with lowest speed, also using professional headphones.
(I don't talk about 320kbps rips burned to cd @ 40x..)
(IMO) Simply, if the target is a professional hi-fi, the compression mustn't be done.. otherwise if the source allows it you can also reach 160kbps with no problem.

[raquete]

I disagree. Ok that mp3 is really lossy under 200,
seems ok....you disagree.....but agree! :rolleyes:
otherwise if the source allows it you can also reach 160kbps with no problem.
if mp3 is really lossy under 200(as you posred and i agree),why you recommend? :p

regards.

[gameplaya15143]

256 kb/s (4.8X compression)
At this bit rate, which really is FM radio quality
That must be one horrible mp3 encoder.

"lacking sparkle in the highs"'sparkle' can mean a few things. I can see glitter sparkle, but I can't hear it sparkle.

ABX is good for you ;)

[mod]

seems ok....you disagree.....but agree! :rolleyes:
:D

if mp3 is really lossy under 200(as you posred and i agree),why you recommend? :p
Because also listening with "normal" speakers makes the decoded audio "lossy", so there's no advantage in encoding it @320 if you use a couple of passive 4Watts speakers.. ;)
Of course IMO it makes no sense to encode lossy at low bitrates if you play the track on a Hi-Fi system.