i am starting to rip some of my mp3's and am wondering if its worth it to rip it in 256kbps or if i should just stick with 192. can you notice the difference? i have logitech z-560's, sennheiser hd 495 headphones and a santa cruz sound card.
192Kbps VS 256kbps mp3's
- Thread starter Cooljt1
- Start date
I prefer 192. If I need something of high quality, I use a loseless codec (i.e., Monkey's Audio).
grrr .. then why are there higher bitrates? those higher bitrates above 160 are extra?
--alt-preset standard .. encodes from 160-224
I've heard some crappy rips at 160. That was a few years ago though. I always rip my CD's at 192.
i agree . but saying 160 cd quality is not so. Audio CD is second best recordings, next to the masters and those are played on very expensive sets of equipment.
Perhaps you meant Transparency. To some 160 is tranparent (not being able to tell an audible difference between the wav and encoded file).
If it weren't for the fact that most people agree upon it - I've still played 160kbps songs (burnt to cd) in my car and I can definitely tell. It's nowhere near as bad as 128 but it's not 100% cd quality.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
if you use lame/eac, then 192kbs is enough. 128 is way too little, 160 is probably borderline even though most of the time i canT tell. 192 has a little extra for mind at ease, 256 is a tad too much for anything i'll be playing mp3s on. no audiophile quality 10K bucks equip here
The more the better imo. I always rip things in ape as hd-space is so cheap nowadays (have 860Gb in my main computer). And the difference between 160 and 192 and then ape can be heard on good pc-speakers (have the Megaworks 510D speakerset).
That being said unless you have good hearing and reasonably good speakers (300$+ class judging from mine) it isn't that noticable if at all. This is based on my friend who has a similar setup as mine apart from the speakers.
That being said unless you have good hearing and reasonably good speakers (300$+ class judging from mine) it isn't that noticable if at all. This is based on my friend who has a similar setup as mine apart from the speakers.
EAC uses LAME R3MIX by default (VBR MP3). I use it and love it, for all those that say VBR is crap, thats because it was like 2 years ago when they last tried it, it is way better now. R3MIX.net is their site, had lots of good info... currently unavailable. I would stick with at least 192, if you ever need to convert ur MP3s to another lossy format, (IE transfering mp3s to a sony decive in atrac3 format) you will lose quality in that conversion as well; so it kinda depends on what you are doing.
Oh and a word of advice, dont ever covert to CD to MP3, then burn those mp3s to an audio cd, then convert back to MP3.
Oh and a word of advice, dont ever covert to CD to MP3, then burn those mp3s to an audio cd, then convert back to MP3.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
I have plenty of HDD space on my main system, so I encode my MP3's right to 320kbps; I also use the CRC function.
Unfortunately, I used LAME 3.93, and then 3.93.1 - THEN I found out that there's problems with those releases, which I only hear in my car's CD/MP3 player. There's occasional pops and squeaks in those files; then I encoded some files fresh off the CD with LAME 3.92 - almost no glitches. Unfortunately, re-encoding a LAME 3.93.x MP3 to LAME 3.92 also brings some of the errors. I guess that's what you get from a free MP3 codec.
Unfortunately, I used LAME 3.93, and then 3.93.1 - THEN I found out that there's problems with those releases, which I only hear in my car's CD/MP3 player. There's occasional pops and squeaks in those files; then I encoded some files fresh off the CD with LAME 3.92 - almost no glitches. Unfortunately, re-encoding a LAME 3.93.x MP3 to LAME 3.92 also brings some of the errors.
I guess that's what you get from a free MP3 codec.Use LAME 3.92 and -alt --preset standard. That is what EAC uses if you let it set up LAME as an external encoder.
That gives the best compromise between file size and sound quality. Variable bit rate is absolutely the way to go (unless your mp3 player doesn't support VBR).
If you must use CBR use 256 kbps rather than 192 or 160. Extensive double-blind listening tests by Sound & Vision Magazine and a few different regional audio clubs have shown that 256 kbps is the minimum to assure encoding transparency when the source is CD audio.
It's inaccurate to say any mp3 is "CD quality". The data on a CD is sufficient to entirely reconstruct the original audio waveform as recorded. The data in even a 320 kbps mp3 can only reconstruct an approximation of the original waveform. You may not be able to HEAR a difference, but rest assured that there IS a difference.
That gives the best compromise between file size and sound quality. Variable bit rate is absolutely the way to go (unless your mp3 player doesn't support VBR).
If you must use CBR use 256 kbps rather than 192 or 160. Extensive double-blind listening tests by Sound & Vision Magazine and a few different regional audio clubs have shown that 256 kbps is the minimum to assure encoding transparency when the source is CD audio.
It's inaccurate to say any mp3 is "CD quality". The data on a CD is sufficient to entirely reconstruct the original audio waveform as recorded. The data in even a 320 kbps mp3 can only reconstruct an approximation of the original waveform. You may not be able to HEAR a difference, but rest assured that there IS a difference.
Look at it this way....how can even a high quality MP3 with a file size of about 10 MB equal the original CD wave file that is on average about 45 to 50 MB? It's not just compression, something is lost and won't sound the same.
I usually use VBR with 192 as the floor, the files are bigger but not as big as if you just used 256. I find it a good compromise
Bill
-aps-Z ,, that's what i use
been doing reading, might go for some MPC on some high quality. MPC at high quality is good enough for transcoding into -aps .. sounds good to me. Still deciding..
been doing reading, might go for some MPC on some high quality. MPC at high quality is good enough for transcoding into -aps .. sounds good to me. Still deciding..
I always used lame --r3mix. Apparently that's being phased out and the right way is either --alt-preset standard or insane. I figure I'll probably use insane (better safe than sorry, and hdd space is plentiful anyways), but I haven't ripped any cd's in a long time.
in a article some time back ( around 3 months back) I read that the best was 160 kbps for everything except classical music where in the best was 192 kbps.
Raj
Raj
Wow! I must be tone deaf because I can't tell much of a difference between 96kbps and CD. Guess it's all the time I spend near those freakin' 10000 rpm steam turbines in the Navy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter