# Super high quality audio ruins listening experience.



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 22, 2013)

I know this sounds stupid, but when music is in super high quality, the listening experience has dropped for me. In a normal high quality recording, you can hear the instruments clearly and nicely with a full stereo sound. When you listen to a music file at 320kb or above, the audio quality is at super high, thus highlighting every instrument as it can. The problem is, I notice that it takes a nice sounding recording and makes it have too much of a filling sound, and some instruments are less distinct and close together or you hear them on one earphone more than the other. For instance, a nice kicking drum beat with a guitar in a normal/high recording will be punchy and the guitar will have a nice clear tone, but in a recording that is super high quality, the drums start to sound in your face and mushy and you can hear the buzz from the guitars, almost like the higher quality the audio is, the more it expands the instruments around your head. It becomes less enjoyable for me, because you can hear every detail, rather than actually enjoying the music normally and hearing the detail clearly from every instrument in a normal recording. If you lower the quality to normal/high, everything will sound a little more distinct and you can hear the details from every instrument better, rather than that loud, studio, in your face kind of sound that makes an instrument feel too loud and in your face which blankets some instruments that are quieter, and it sounds like chaos. Basically in a super high recording, your head becomes filled too much with one instrument, or other instruments, and the other aspects of the music become less enjoyable. It's just a weird expansion sensation, like you are in the music, rather than listening to it normally. It makes the instrumentation seem less solid, as it expands and becomes thinner inside your head, to high-light every aspect of it.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 22, 2013)

Um, I don't think so. It may just be the headset you're using. Some cope with higher bit rate better than others. Personally I love the sound being spread out between both earphones, it gives a real feeling of immersion as the music just surrounds you. It's like you're "there" (especially in the case of film music).


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Apr 22, 2013)

I agree with Raptros, it probably is just your headphones. I think the stereo experience is awesome when the bit-rate is higher. Everything sounds so much more realistic, with all the sounds right up against your ear rather than almost smushed together towards the centre of the sound stage. I remember the day I found out how to up the sample rate on my laptop to the highest setting.... It sounded like a whole new set of headphones.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 22, 2013)

Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> I agree with Raptros, it probably is just your headphones. I think the stereo experience is awesome when the bit-rate is higher. Everything sounds so much more realistic, with all the sounds right up against your ear rather than almost smushed together towards the centre of the sound stage. I remember the day I found out how to up the sample rate on my laptop to the highest setting.... It sounded like a whole new set of headphones.


Bye bye 44100hz lol. I have mine around 90,000hz (I forget the exact number) though the speakers I have are capable of about 120,000hz.


----------



## Heliophobic (Apr 22, 2013)

In my opinion, it all depends on the kind of music. If it's just like really raw, gritty rock (not implying that's a bad thing) then lower bitrate might actually make it sound nicer. But if it's very structured and complex music that really requires the listener's focus (think shit like electronic ambient music), then you should really prioritize sound quality over space by finding a nice lossless format.

I wouldn't really call myself an audiophile (I'm still too scared to take the What.cd interview), but I'm not going to lie; high bitrate really does make the listening experience much better sometimes. With the proper sound devices, of course. You're not going to notice a difference with your Beats.

But I'm a bit of a purist and a maximalist, so it's a habit of mine to grab the highest quality download I can find regardless. It's more of a compulsion than a rational desire.


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Apr 22, 2013)

Digital stuff will only sound so good, particularly when it's playing through headphones and not speakers.


----------



## Tigercougar (Apr 22, 2013)

Never really cared; if I can find an mp3 at 320 quality I'm satisfied. Lossless formats take up too much drive space.


----------



## Rigby (Apr 22, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Bye bye 44100hz lol. I have mine around 90,000hz  (I forget the exact number) though the speakers I have are capable of  about 120,000hz.



The sample rates of most common studio microphones don't even go  that high, the band would have to go out of their way to record  something with that high of fidelity.



TheMetalVelocity said:


> OP POST



I am highly convinced you don't even really understand what it means when a song has a higher bitrate because the notion that it would have this effect is utterly absurd. A higher frequency range won't alter the mix of the song. Sounds like a placebo effect (but negative).


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 23, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> Never really cared; if I can find an mp3 at 320 quality I'm satisfied. Lossless formats take up too much drive space.



Even FLAC?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 23, 2013)

Uncompressed PCM for lyfe!


----------



## Rigby (Apr 23, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Uncompressed PCM for lyfe!



But the only difference between compressed and uncompressed PCM is the filesize (not to mention compressed is typically more universally compatible).


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 23, 2013)

Rigby said:


> But the only difference between compressed and uncompressed PCM is the filesize (not to mention compressed is typically more universally compatible).



Compatibility and simplicity.  PCM can be ingested by just about everything and it's the simplest format to work with, so it's what I work with and store audio as when working for film and TV.


----------



## Demensa (Apr 23, 2013)

I keep all of my music in mp3 320, because keeping everything in FLAC or something similar, takes too much effort for extra quality that I've honestly never noted as being significantly better. Maybe I just have really bad headphones or I'm just deaf.
It seems like a good balance between quality and convenience.



ArielMT said:


> Even FLAC?



If you have _a lot _of music then even FLAC can take up too much space.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 24, 2013)

I don't know, to me the lower bit rate makes the music sound a little more solid and more distinct. I guess it does depend on the file.


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (May 1, 2013)

I... am gonna go to the vinyl thread. ^^;


----------



## Seekrit (May 1, 2013)

Ruins it for me for a different reason. First time I heard a FLAC version of a song I couldn't go back to mp3s, they just sounded like scratchy digital crap from then on.

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (May 1, 2013)

secretfur said:


> Ruins it for me for a different reason. First time I heard a FLAC version of a song I couldn't go back to mp3s, they just sounded like scratchy digital crap from then on.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss.



I thought it was sub-standard headphones. 

Seriously though. My old mp3 playlists sounded like complete crap when using my Beats HD. I thought it was the Beats (which infuriated me because even with the deal I got, they're still expensive), but after some testing, it turned out to be many of my sub-standard mp3 downloads.

Either that or ALL my headphone jacks are screwed.


----------



## Kalmor (May 1, 2013)

Rigby said:


> The sample rates of most common studio microphones don't even go  that high, the band would have to go out of their way to record  something with that high of fidelity.


What can I say, I just crank it up to max just because I can.

Anyway, you reminded me of an important point. There seems to be a confusion about "sample rate" and "bitrate" (even a mistake I made). They're different things. The sample rate is the Hz or kHz value. The bitrate is say, 16-bit and 24-bit. Lets say, 48kHz is a different aspect to the quality than 24-bit. The latter refers to uncompressed bitrate while the former refers to the sample rate, or the highest audible frequency. A low sample rate means you can't hear sizzling cymbals easily, and a low bitrate just means lots of static, for example.

I hope I got that right anyway. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 2, 2013)

That's why I like mah records.


----------



## Tigercougar (May 2, 2013)

d.batty said:


> That's why I like mah records.



I do like that..."warm" sound that only comes from listening to records.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Tigercougar said:


> I do like that..."warm" sound that only comes from listening to records.



If your records sound "warm" then you have a cheap cartridge.


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> If your records sound "warm" then you have a cheap cartridge.



What brand do you recommend then?


----------

