Customer Discussions > mp3 discussion forum

320Kps PLEASE...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 174 posts in this discussion
Posted on 21 Dec 2011 01:13:18 GMT
Kev says:
Just bought a single with two tracks, one at 240kbps and the other at 208. WTF? This needs sorting.

Posted on 26 Dec 2011 02:05:57 GMT
What's the point of 320 Kbps CBR - you are just wasting file space. The point of VBR is that the bit rate adjusts as needed. I really doubt there is an audible difference from VBR V0 vbr new and 320 Kbps CBR.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Dec 2011 02:10:54 GMT
208 might be a calculated average. There are freeware tools like mp3plot which will show you the bitrate distribution in a VBR MP3.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Dec 2011 02:26:31 GMT
"Most of the time 320kbps is total overkill and adds absolutely nothing audible to the music" - that depends entirely on the hardware you're listening to your music on...and your hearing A highend player and IEMs will definitely show up the differences between 320kbps and a Lossless format or CD"

... He was comparing VBR 0 with CBR 320, and I agree with the statement. It's pointless offering 320 CBR over VBR V0.

Posted on 26 Dec 2011 09:33:32 GMT
Jack says:
In my opinion anything more than 196kb/s ABR or VRB on LAME is overkill, so either I am severely hearing challenged or most of you "audiophiles" are deluded. It would be very interesting to find out how many of those who claim to be able to hear the subtle differences between a 256kb/s and a 320kb/s mp3 file can really tell one from the other with statistical significance. Amazon obviously thinks not many.

Posted on 27 Dec 2011 01:13:53 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Dec 2011 01:33:33 GMT
I think the title of this thread should be: "Lossless audio please." Although I doubt anyone can actually tell the difference between a high bitrate MP3 and lossless audio. Those that can/care are in a minority to the newer generation who rips/stores music and video on hard drives/SSDs for portable MP3 players, network media streamers and in-car MP3 players. Not having 20 CD cases in the car is a huge advantage as is being able to filter and instantly select music to play over my home network from my NAS (Network Attached Storage). I have a cupboard full of CDs that will never see the light of day for this reason.

I do not want Amazon to start offering 320Kbps MP3s because that would be completely pointless. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and misconceptions/misunderstanding about the technology and terminology here.

320Kbps CBR (Constant Bitrate) means wasted space and large file sizes for no gain whatsoever. Why? Because most, if not all music tracks will not require the full 320Kbps of data to represent the audio throughout the track (think quieter periods for example). You could actually be storing 320Kbps of silence.

ABR (Average bitrate) means an average bitrate is calculated and used. None of my downloads from Amazon have been ABR.

VBR V0 (highest quality up to and including 320Kbps) is what Amazon uses from what I can tell from the tracks I have downloaded. The audio data is represented at 320Kbps when it's required and if you download a tool like mp3plot to see the bitrate distribution in a VBR V0 MP3, you'll see that's not all of the time. There is no benefit to having 320Kbps CBR over the currently implimented VBR V0 - it's a negative impact.

MP3 vs CD is a different debate. Should Amazon offer a lossless audio format, maybe. Will it be as cheap, popular and portable, no. Do I want to store thousands of CDs on my NAS in FLAC? No. I would run out of space fast, have to re-encode for the car and every consumer portable MP3 player.

Interesting further reading and explanations:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/539748/mp3-debate-320cbr-vs-v0

Posted on 27 Dec 2011 08:28:10 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Dec 2011 08:29:11 GMT
L. Davidson says:
I want a lossless option so that:

1) I can re-encode it to whatever lossy format(s) and bitrate(s) I want for different devices with different amounts of storage. (Doing that with an already-lossy format is a really bad idea, so with lossy you are stuck with whatever Amazon sell you.)

(Actually, also for converting to other lossless formats. Some software/devices handles some formats better than others, even ignoring bitrate and filesize.)

2) I am not paying money for music that is in a format with worse quality than what I could get in the 1980s. Progress is meant to move forwards, not backwards.

I don't care which lossless format it is. FLAC, WMA-L, ALAC, whatever. They can all be converted into each other.

Storage space, bandwidth and download time for lossless music on computers is a non-issue these days, and not very different to 320kbps MP3 either.

I have hundreds of self-ripped albums in lossless formats on my PC and it's only using 215GB which is nothing in this age of cheap 1TB / 2TB drives. My 160GB iPod has lossless stuff on it as well (why not?). I convert the files down to 190kbps VBR for my phone, since it has less space.

Given the choice, I will only buy music in a lossless format. That usually means CD, except with a few forward-thinking groups/labels. I'd much rather buy and download my music online than wait for the post and have to store and rip a physical object, though. There's a market for this so why are so many companies ignoring it?

The music industry takes so long to change direction.

Posted on 29 Dec 2011 12:29:07 GMT
R. E. Norton says:
I think the real issue here is that Amazon (quite bizarrely) refuses to list the bit rates of its mp3`s, meaning that you only find out which it is AFTER you have purchased it.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2011 12:41:27 GMT
nephran says:
That's because thems went from 320 or 256 kbps constant bitrate to a variable bitrate encoding..

Posted on 30 Dec 2011 00:35:20 GMT
anthonygabo says:
you can buy at fnac to have 320 kbps MP3 musics

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2012 16:37:34 GMT
I agree, Im a DJ and the bare minimum Ill play out is 320kbps. I would start purchasing from amazon if the 320 option existed, preferably a .wav option would be best. I stay well clear of itunes and their inferior sound quality and use of very restricting drm

Posted on 5 Jan 2012 14:22:53 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Jan 2012 14:29:53 GMT
D. P. French says:
What on earth? iTunes sound quality (256kbps AAC) is superior to MP3 at any bitrate and has no DRM whatsoever.

And the "320kbps is better than VBR" argument is based on nothing more than the assumption that a higher number must be better. It has no basis in logic, science, or understanding.

The encoder LAME uses the same psychoacoustic model for 320kbps as it does for -V0 (the highest quality VBR) - but in 320kbps mode it pads out unused space with blank frames! There's a reason why the encoder ITSELF refers to 320kbps CBR as "Insane Mode". In VBR mode, bitrate is given to maintain *quality*. If a particular passage of music does not require the full 320kbps of bitrate to maintain quality, the encoder drops the bitrate - leaving more bits available for demanding passages! Furthermore, in VBR mode LAME can actually give a shade *over* 320kbps to passages that need it, in part due to its ability to "purchase" bitrate from less-complex passages and in part due to the bit reservoir. A bit of research and understanding is a wonderful thing and a stark contrast to "I WANT THE HIGHER NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S BETTER" mentality we see bandied about so frequently.

Please people, do *not* circulate outright fallacies.

I do unreservedly agree that arguing about lossy downloads is a nonsense in 2011. Lossless downloads are what is required.

It's about time Amazon (and others, for that matter) started offering genuinely CD-quality downloads - and not the halfway-house compromise they are offering now. At no point in history has audio technology taken a voluntary step backwards in the name of convenience of distribution; until now.

Get your act together. FLAC downloads please. WAV is absolutely pointless and no other lossless format has the compatibility, cross-platform support, hardware support, and resilience of FLAC. Seriously. Lossless downloads should be a standard across the board by now. They're at least five years late. Downloads should offer *at least* the same sound quality offered by a CD (thirty year old technology, folks) otherwise there is categorically no point at all.

Posted on 5 Jan 2012 15:34:07 GMT
Sonic says:
Amazon should at least give us a flac option perhaps 10-20p extra per track. That way those of us who want good quality music can download flac and those who are only ever going to play it on their portable stereo can get an mp3 of unknown quality. Even for lossy vorbis is better than both mp3 and aac at equivalent bitrates and has the advantage of being free (as in speech).
Wav doesn't support tagging so that only really leaves flac for lossless. As mentioned above you can transcode lossless many times.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2012 16:23:04 GMT
nephran says:
Visit hdtracks.com for a heads up as to thems pricing of flac files.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2012 17:16:52 GMT
anthonygabo says:
It's a good website but I didn't find Michael Jackson =(

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2012 17:21:26 GMT
nephran says:
Meses just mentioned it so weses can see where thems prices for flac are heading...Roughly $18 dollars for an album = about £12...

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2012 21:02:50 GMT
M. A. Milton says:
I agree with you, PLAY downloads are in 320 kbps so why cant Amazon Match this ???????????

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jan 2012 17:45:12 GMT
MR T ESPLEY says:
ill second that.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jan 2012 11:38:16 GMT
Phil J says:
Hi All
I do think all the discussions below have forgot one or two things
128 compression is fine for walk-man ipod .When you are using Head phones plugged into your ears
you will not hear any differance
But thats where it stops even 320 compression is not good you lose the bass end
So why can you not down load in WAV file yes it would take longer but the standard would be as good as it gets
Also ive would like to know file size prior to paying for it why can this not be done !!!
Amozon and the music industry need to look after the hand that feeds us the customer
Listen to your paymasters
Keep it as clean as possible and your download market will grow even more
PJ

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jan 2012 16:53:03 GMT
K Odeluga says:
How about buying the CD instead? Then you can have it in any quality format that you like [even the original 16 bit!]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jan 2012 17:03:43 GMT
K Odeluga says:
How about buying the CD? Then you can have whichever quality format you wish [even 16-bit!]

Posted on 11 Jan 2012 19:09:33 GMT
TWD says:
As an independent artist (Thin White Dude), I have to upload Wav files for distribution to various sites, so I can really notice the difference in 'audio quality' for any downloads.

However I very rarely notice a difference between a 320kbps and a VBR 2**kbps version. Perhaps I should stop making music... :)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2012 15:33:19 GMT
truthsetter says:
They should offer FLAC files like zunior.com does

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2012 15:34:35 GMT
truthsetter says:
Buy CD then use EXACT AUDIO COPY to put on your laptop as a WAV uncompressed

Posted on 15 Jan 2012 00:34:55 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Jan 2012 01:13:20 GMT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  mp3 discussion forum
Participants:  102
Total posts:  174
Initial post:  15 Dec 2008
Latest post:  6 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions