-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
192Kbps VS 256kbps mp3's
- Thread starter Cooljt1
- Start date
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
That absolutely is not true.
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).
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
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
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
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.
Zugzwang152
Lifer
all CD's I rip myself I max out the LAME codec at 320kbps just to make sure 🙂
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
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.
slicksilver
Golden Member
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
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
