192Kbps VS 256kbps mp3's

[Workin']

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
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

Well, that's just flat-out nonsense. See my earlier post in this thread about bitrate and encoding transparency and listening tests.

Also, whether you can hear a difference or not depends greatly on your playback equipment (or if you have worked with steam turbines!). Crappy $20 speakers are going to sound the same no matter what you run through them. Although I suspect that if you can't hear the difference between 96kbps and the original CD your hearing must be severely compromised or you are listening on the built-in speakers of an old laptop computer.

 

[mk]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
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.

Don't bother using --alt-preset insane, the quality improvement (if any) over --alt-preset standard -Z is negligible while costing some 100kbps, in the rare cases where aps fails all higher bitrate presets/commandlines will do so as well.

If hardware compatibility isn't a big concern you might want to consider using a quality oriented format such as musepack, aac/mp4 or vorbis (although the official version isn't tuned for high bitrates yet).

 

[Redviffer]

Originally posted by: Workin'
Also, whether you can hear a difference or not depends greatly on your playback equipment (or if you have worked with steam turbines!). Crappy $20 speakers are going to sound the same no matter what you run through them. Although I suspect that if you can't hear the difference between 96kbps and the original CD your hearing must be severely compromised or you are listening on the built-in speakers of an old laptop computer.

I'd have to go with the "severely compromised" choice.

I have: SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 and Altec Lansing 641 Ultimate 4.1 surround speakers. Hey, maybe it's the good hardware and good speakers that make even crappy bitrate mp3's sound good? I tried going with onboard sound and I did hear a difference between that and SBLive.

 

[alexruiz]

I usually try for VCD audio quality..... 224 kbps.....

 

[HarryAngel]

most of the part i rip 192 but sometimes i can do a 320. 192 is good enough but for that extra chrystal clean sound i do 320

 

[Workin']

I have: ... Altec Lansing 641 Ultimate 4.1 surround speakers.

I have those speakers as well. They are as good as it gets as far as "multimedia" speakers go. BUt for critical listening it's off to the multi-kilobucks audio system for some serious listening.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Mk4

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
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.

Don't bother using --alt-preset insane, the quality improvement (if any) over --alt-preset standard -Z is negligible while costing some 100kbps, in the rare cases where aps fails all higher bitrate presets/commandlines will do so as well.

If hardware compatibility isn't a big concern you might want to consider using a quality oriented format such as musepack, aac/mp4 or vorbis (although the official version isn't tuned for high bitrates yet).

Cool! Another poster who follows on the compression front.

 

[Smilin]

I use 192 myself but for a unique reason : the mp3 player in my car only decodes up to 192.

I can definately tell the difference between 160 and CD, but I can only tell the difference between 192 and CD in about half the tunes I have. I'd probably encode just a bit higher than 192 if it weren't for the car. I doubt I'd go off the deep end and do 320. If you're that concerned about quality you might want to just stick with CD's

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Redviffer
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.

Yeah, those bastards shaved a bit off my top end too...too many months on the flightdeck. I'll hit em with with minor disability someday.

 

[htmlmasterdave]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Actually, you won't hear the difference between 160 and 192kbps, since 160 is already CD quality.

That absolutely is not true.

It isn't CD quality.