320kb Audio

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

natstick

New member
Sep 17, 2011
16
0
0
Hello all

My first post and I hope its not been repeated.

I'm looking to build my first "real" system around a Merantz Network Aduio player, PM-KI Pearl lite or similar, with undecided speaker selection as yet, and am quite excited.

My question is:

With most of music being streamed from Spotify at an alleged 320kps, what do you consider the upper limit regards audio equipment when used with this lowere quality source?

I listen to all sorts from Massive Attack, Radiohead, the Stones, Stone Roses, through to Depeche Mode, New Order, and some modern Cheese! etc.

I would say I favour accoustic melodies and voice over thumping base, although prefer a more laid back sond, hence my preconciecved idea on the Marantz equipment.

My listening area is approx 5x3m of uncluttered space, and although I have some FLAC files, the majority will be via Spotify.

Thanks in advance

Natstick
 
Hi Steve

Well, that depends really hence my question.

What I want to know:

is there any point buying high end kit, when your source is only 320kps?
 
>is there any point buying high end kit, when your source is only 320kps?<

Nope. You'd be perfecly fine with a Squeezebox Touch with it's official Spotify add-in and a set of Audio Engine A5 active speakers. IMHO, obviously.
 
Given that 192kbps can sound pretty impressive, 320 is very hard for the average listener (and that's most of us) to discern any major differences from CD. It's the quality of the recording/mastering that counts - give me a low bitrate but great production/mastering overan HD quality rubbish effort any day.
 
I tend to agree with RS, if the music is badly recorded and compressed it will still sound awful on cd.

By the way RS, what has happened to the Sansui x2?
 
The recording of music is pretty much all that matters, anything else is an afterthought.

Roger Waters ' Amused to Death ' sounds incredible even on my rubbish Curry's idock i have in the kitchen.
 
I don't have an answer as to th eupper limit, I'm afraid.

However, as I think 320kbps MP3s are pretty much transparent, and diminishing returns kick in pretty early (in my limited experience), that isn't the question I'd be asking.

Ideally, I'd try to listen to a range of kit, and set a budget.
 
Thanks all for your replies.

I'm considering spending up to approx £2200, and like the look of the Marantz Pearl lite cd/dac and amp combination plus Tannoy DC6T speakers or similar, as the dac feature plus cd/sacd seems to cover my wish list well.

Just wondered what peoples opinions on whether the source audio would warrant spending that much or whether the peak value/quality point would be much lower, as amcluesent suggested with Squeezebox/Audio Engine A5.

I can only assume the likes of Spotify provide their mp3's from a high quality source, but thats just guessing.

thanks again
 
The Sansui 217 I still have but the 717 went a couple of weeks ago. Its protection mode was activated and I sent it off to charity at the local recycling centre. They PAT test it and might be able to fix too, so it might go to a good home.

I bought the Rotel as had always wanted try one out (very good it is too - 80w, can take a power amp too) but mostly as the proceeds of the sale were going to a hospice. That's it for the box swapping though. I'm done with that game now. Life's taken a significant turn for the worse of late and my attention is elsewhere for the time being.
 
Hi Record Spot

I've read your posts over the years and sorry to hear your bad news. I hope the mention of the proceeds going to a hospice are not an indicator of the severity of the news.

Wishing you the best.
 
Thanks very kindly Xanderzdad, sorry for the confusion in my post, the hospice donation was incidental but it spurred me to bid for the amp, otherwise I'd probably have let it go. It's not related to the "other stuff" that's going just now thankfully.
 
Sorry to hear that RS, hope the Rotel brings many hours of pleasure though.
 
RS, you don't seem to be the type that wants a fuss made - all the same, I would like to say that I hope things work out for you.

Cno

(apologies to OP for going off topic - though for good reason)
 
natstick said:
is there any point buying high end kit, when your source is only 320kps?
Click to expand...

In my opinion I would say yes it is definitely worth spending more on a hifi even if you will only use Spotify as a source. Bare in mind that not all of Spotify's music is 320kbps. Much of them are only 160kbps.

As to how much you should spend an what you get is up to you. I'd advise going to some hifi shops with some MP3's (both 320kbps and 160kbps) and have a listen to as many different speakers and amps as you can.
 
If you get the chance have a listen to an AVI Neutron Five 2.1 system which is has just gone down in price from £1300 to £900. If you like detail and accuracy then this is absolutely fantastic and sounds better than most £2000 systems.

Another great system for only £900 is an Arcam rDac, with a Marantz PM6003 amplifier and B&W 685 speakers. If you want a system that has attitude then this combo makes anything sound fun.

These are both great system but at the end of the day listen for yourself and go with whatever sounds good to you. 🙂
 
the record spot said:
Given that 192kbps can sound pretty impressive, 320 is very hard for the average listener (and that's most of us) to discern any major differences from CD. It's the quality of the recording/mastering that counts - give me a low bitrate but great production/mastering overan HD quality rubbish effort any day.
Click to expand...

True, to an extent...

But, IME, when listening to a work that has a half-decent master/mix, the difference in its 320kbps and CD/ALAC versions is often alarming. EG: Little Dragon's Ritual Union and James Blake's eponymous debut.

And try a '320kbps vs 96kHz/24bit' using Talking Heads' Remain in Light 🙂
 
daskeg said:
Sorry to hear that RS, hope the Rotel brings many hours of pleasure though.
Click to expand...

Thanks very kindly daskeg and the Rotel is working out nicely. It's started well.
 
CnoEvil said:
RS, you don't seem to be the type that wants a fuss made - all the same, I would like to say that I hope things work out for you. Cno (apologies to OP for going off topic - though for good reason)
Click to expand...

Many thanks and much appreciated CnoEvil. And yes, you're absolutely right about the fuss thing.
 
6th.replicant said:
the record spot said:
Given that 192kbps can sound pretty impressive, 320 is very hard for the average listener (and that's most of us) to discern any major differences from CD. It's the quality of the recording/mastering that counts - give me a low bitrate but great production/mastering overan HD quality rubbish effort any day.
Click to expand...

True, to an extent...

But, IME, when listening to a work that has a half-decent master/mix, the difference in its 320kbps and CD/ALAC versions is often alarming. EG: Little Dragon's Ritual Union and James Blake's eponymous debut.

And try a '320kbps vs 96kHz/24bit' using Talking Heads' Remain in Light 🙂
Click to expand...

Hello 6th R., my earlier point was to compare crap mastering with good and by extension to highlight the importance of that but (almost) irrespective of a decent bitrate (that being at least 192kbps upwards). Comparing like with like wasn't the point I was trying to make, though anyone sitting there listening to 192, 320 or whatever, won't be too shortchanged. And life's kind of too short as well...though I agree that two spins of Remain in Light is time well spent!
 
steve_1979 said:
As to how much you should spend an what you get is up to you. I'd advise going to some hifi shops with some MP3's (both 320kbps and 160kbps) and have a listen to as many different speakers and amps as you can.
Click to expand...
+1. Soundest advice so far in my opinion. Go and listen to some kit at a reputable dealers, from budget to the top of your price-bracket, and draw a line when you either can't tell the difference or when the difference is just a difference and not necessarily better to your ears and musical tastes. At that precise moment, that's you found the system you should walk out of the shop with. Happy hunting.
 
It'd also be worth going to a pro audio shop and listening to some active studio monitors too. They offer very good value for money and will give you a detailed and accurate sound which many people like. I think that Dynaudios range of active speakers are very good.
 
2nd/3rd whatever on 320 kbps (or lower) sounding great through expensive gear. As has been mentioned, the recording process is the key. If a CD has been dynamically compressed, then it will sound bad whether at full CD quality or mp3/aac, and it will sound great at even 160 kbps if it has been recorded well.

Try tuning into Linn Radio and see if you can suggest that it's anything other than excellent quality.

http://radio.linnrecords.com/
 
Wholeheartedly agree with all who recognise that the original recording mastering/quality is the key. I have a Decca box set of Wagners Ring cycle recorded some 50 years ago and it knocks spots off all the competition even at 320 quality. Conversely some of my good lady's more recent mainstream pop/rock offerings are simply abysmal. Some of the blame lies with the peddlars of online tracks you can download as they know most people will be playing them pack via MP3 players etc so they don't give 2 hoots aout the quality. Sadly it seems to be a growing trend and does nothing for those wanting an audiophile experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom