This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is "192 kbps" Considered GARBAGE In Terms Of Audio Quality?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is "192 kbps" Considered GARBAGE In Terms Of Audio Quality?

User Info: GoIrish80

GoIrish80
1 month ago#21
So I’m still waiting for this “proof” (which I can assure you I will be more shocked than anyone if anything even close to actual proof exists,) or an apology.

User Info: Sir_Haxor

Sir_Haxor
1 month ago#22
Silly_Topic posted...
GoIrish80 posted...
You clearly don't know much about audio so it really isn't going to matter to you either way. You talk as if the amount of kbps is the be-all-end-all in terms of quality, and it really isn't. Just because something is lossless doesn't mean it's going to sound great, and just because something is 96kbps (or whatever,) doesn't mean it's going to sound horrible.

192kbps is nowhere near "GARBAGE," it's also nowhere near the most important thing when talking about sound quality.

This sounds funny coming from a guy who got exposed for looking at CP. Plz don't talk when u are known for doing questionable things...


How to jack your own thread 101.

No longer interested in sound quality, wanna hear about this crap instead.
Z370 | i7 8700 | Cryorig M9i | EVGA GTX 1080ti | EVGA GS 650w | 16GB DDR4 | WDB 3TB |500GB SSD | Toshiba 500GB | Challenger S | VS XG2703-GS | LG 27UD68 |

User Info: Black_Assassin

Black_Assassin
1 month ago#23
It'd be audibly transparent if it were Opus for example.
Want to cure diseases with your spare computing power?
http://folding.stanford.edu/

User Info: GoIrish80

GoIrish80
1 month ago#24
Still waiting.

User Info: Shinkoden

Shinkoden
1 month ago#25
192 to me is good, but I'm a bad person to give an opinion on this as I can't tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 320 or FLAC, which I consider a good thing because I have saved so much space over the years encoding to 128 for my own personal music collection. IMO if you also can't tell the difference, then go with 192 to save space, if needed.

User Info: Lienhart

Lienhart
1 month ago#26
GoIrish80 posted...
You clearly don't know much about audio so it really isn't going to matter to you either way. You talk as if the amount of kbps is the be-all-end-all in terms of quality, and it really isn't. Just because something is lossless doesn't mean it's going to sound great, and just because something is 96kbps (or whatever,) doesn't mean it's going to sound horrible.

192kbps is nowhere near "GARBAGE," it's also nowhere near the most important thing when talking about sound quality.


Just gotta say, as an audiophile myself this post is pretty spot on.

I also don't feel like explaining this; learn to Google OP. There are many more factors than just bitrate.

Shinkoden posted...
192 to me is good, but I'm a bad person to give an opinion on this as I can't tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 320 or FLAC, which I consider a good thing because I have saved so much space over the years encoding to 128 for my own personal music collection. IMO if you also can't tell the difference, then go with 192 to save space, if needed.


You can't tell the difference because your equipment is subpar (no offense, seriously.)

If you have, say, a 1more triple driver earbud set with an entry level amp, you will be able to hear the difference. Total cost of that setup is less than $200. If you start ramping it up to say the HD650, which scale incredibly well with more powerful amps, you will for sure be able to hear it.
I like to go really fast
https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9IgDmMQGjEboTHyM/giphy.gif

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
1 month ago#27
TC has basically no clue what he's talking/asking about... he just heard something somewhere about bitrate, and he wants the best (whether he can actually hear any difference or not).

Betting if he had a 192kbps song, and it was copied and re-encoded at 128kbps with all other factors the same, he'd struggle to hear the difference.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: Lienhart

Lienhart
1 month ago#28
KillerTruffle posted...
TC has basically no clue what he's talking/asking about... he just heard something somewhere about bitrate, and he wants the best (whether he can actually hear any difference or not).

Betting if he had a 192kbps song, and it was copied and re-encoded at 128kbps with all other factors the same, he'd struggle to hear the difference.


Funny how every single audiophile in this thread knows who is and isn't an audiophile, without knowing this before hand, and that the OP is just trying to stir s***.
I like to go really fast
https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9IgDmMQGjEboTHyM/giphy.gif

User Info: Shinkoden

Shinkoden
1 month ago#29
Lienhart posted...
GoIrish80 posted...
You clearly don't know much about audio so it really isn't going to matter to you either way. You talk as if the amount of kbps is the be-all-end-all in terms of quality, and it really isn't. Just because something is lossless doesn't mean it's going to sound great, and just because something is 96kbps (or whatever,) doesn't mean it's going to sound horrible.

192kbps is nowhere near "GARBAGE," it's also nowhere near the most important thing when talking about sound quality.


Just gotta say, as an audiophile myself this post is pretty spot on.

I also don't feel like explaining this; learn to Google OP. There are many more factors than just bitrate.

Shinkoden posted...
192 to me is good, but I'm a bad person to give an opinion on this as I can't tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 320 or FLAC, which I consider a good thing because I have saved so much space over the years encoding to 128 for my own personal music collection. IMO if you also can't tell the difference, then go with 192 to save space, if needed.


You can't tell the difference because your equipment is subpar (no offense, seriously.)

If you have, say, a 1more triple driver earbud set with an entry level amp, you will be able to hear the difference. Total cost of that setup is less than $200. If you start ramping it up to say the HD650, which scale incredibly well with more powerful amps, you will for sure be able to hear it.

I do have crappy equipment. My speakers are from 15 year ago. But I did try listening on a friends setup who is an audio recorder and has some really good stuff, and still couldn't tell the difference...even he thought I was crazy. I guess my hearing for that is just bad I don't know. Not really a curse though I basically know I can use my speakers until they break someday and get something mediocre to replacement and be happy.

User Info: FL81

FL81
1 month ago#30
192 kbps and up all sounds about the same to me, but I wouldn't go any lower than that number
https://imgtc.com/i/C6jP02v.jpg https://imgtc.com/i/UAGNJFv.gif
https://imgtc.com/i/cBTnWgf.png https://imgtc.com/i/wdjM3F8.png
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is "192 kbps" Considered GARBAGE In Terms Of Audio Quality?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

Update Topic Flair

You are not allowed to update this topic's flair.

  • Topic Archived