MP3 Question. whats the difference between Kbps?

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: Solodays
what is the default kbps for audio cd's?

around 1411 kb/s

double checked ... approved

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Firsttime
It's all personal preference. I am not bothered by music at 96kbps, 128kbps is my default setting. I can see how some people like it at 192kbps+ but for me that's just to much space to justify.

I've had issues with occasional missing muscal info at 128. I never go under 196.

With hard drive space these days, I do 320kbs w/ variable rate.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
use lame encoder. its considered the best for mp3. razor lame front end, or use it with EAC for ripping/naming with cddb/encode in one step. just google lame mp3 and you'lll find plenty of info. i use the extreme settings. variable bitrate of around 200-240~kbps ish. never use 128kpbs, its too low, and just a shady marketing number to claim very high compression or in the case of mp3 players high song capacity. 128kpbs no matter what the fliers say is not cd quality. mp3 becomes transparent from cd for most at 192kpbs or so. don't use itunes encoder. its weird, its vbr is broken from what i've read, it actually does worse in vbr than cbr. to be expected, apple wants you to use their format instead

wma>appleaac>lamemp3

no DRM > *

yup, in listening tests at higher bitrates 160kbps+ there is no advantage not going with lame mp3, it is as good or superior to anything out there.

and yea cd is 1141kbps, uncompressed

lossless isn't worth the space and lack of wide spread compatibility kills it. just keep the cds around for some future format rip you'd have to have golden ears to tell high bitrate mp3 vs lossless..and probably some equipment so expensive most people frankly don't have it. people who claim to hear the difference tend to fail blind tests and plenty can be fooled into buying nonsense like fancy cables thinking it makes an audible difference. audiophile magazines are filled with such stuff. just remember that

 

[torpid]

I rip at variable bit rate lame up to 320 and can tell a big difference between it and some of my older rips at 192 AAC. But only in my car stereo. On decent headphones it's hard to tell the difference still. It's kind of shocking, actually, how much different things sound on a really good stereo system (zapco, morel, etc.). The arcade fire's funeral even at lossless sounds worse than most Beatles CDs at 192 and higher on my system now.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I use 320kbps MP3 minimum on all of my PCs. If only my MP3 player supported FLAC.

I ripped it using LAME and CDEX

Thats a waste. You might as well go lossless at that unwise bitrate.

Two comments - first, he obviously stated that if his MP3 player supported FLAC, he would use it. Second, there's still a big difference in space between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC, but not that big of a difference in sound quality (depends on your equipment, mostly).

encoding to 320 kbps for use on a portable is stupid. This goes for ANY portable unless it's tied to an aftermarket D/A converter/amp like a Bit-Head. And with a high end pair of cans

I sample it at 320 kbps for use on my PC's audio system. My MP3's hard drive is 3X the size of my music collection, so I see no need to convert it. I am not going to keep one flac (for PC audio) and one MP3 sample (for MP3 player) of my music for I am too lazy to rip it twice and I cannot tell the difference when listening to a 320 kbps MP3 and a FLAC file.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: dBTelos

Originally posted by: Firsttime
It's all personal preference. I am not bothered by music at 96kbps, 128kbps is my default setting. I can see how some people like it at 192kbps+ but for me that's just to much space to justify.

If you have high-end audio equipment (or anything better then $5 headphones), then you will notice the higher bit rate music.

I usually use 192kbps mp3, but 128 is ok also. I grew up on crappy fm radio, 8 tracks, cassettes, and vinyl. Anything over 64kbps sounds better than that.

 

[Codewiz]

Anyone who thinks you can't tell a difference between 192 and 320 mp3s isn't listening to the right music. Listen to any music with fast drumming, especially snare. It sounds like a muddy mess at 192. It isn't all that great at 320.

MP3 is notorious for killing treble. I used to encode in VQF for that reason alone. Too bad lack of seeking killed the format.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Anyone who thinks you can't tell a difference between 192 and 320 mp3s isn't listening to the right music. Listen to any music with fast drumming, especially snare. It sounds like a muddy mess at 192. It isn't all that great at 320.

MP3 is notorious for killing treble. I used to encode in VQF for that reason alone. Too bad lack of seeking killed the format.

It's a rather subtle difference between 192 and 320, and my belief is that if you don't have headphones above $50 (where the PX100, iGrado, and PortaPro come into play), you probably won't be able to hear a difference between the two bitrates. Truthfully, I think snare and cymbal representation depends 85% on the headphones and 15% on the bitrate. Grados are amazing at replicating drums and cymbals, while others are not so good, such as the Altec Lansing iM716.

 

[torpid]

Hm... I feel that it is more about amping than headphones. I've noticed a difference more with a good amp, headphone, car, etc. than I have with different speakers.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
By default to you mean to rip? That depends on the software, but it usually 128, although you cant measure the cd audio in kbps, as it is in a lossless state.

CDs are not truly lossless, this is why the vinyl crowd still exists. CDs / wavs are 1440 or so kbps. I agree with many posters that 192 is the sweet spot, but I use a codec which sounds good at 192 - ogg-vorbis. The venerable mp3 format is getting long in the tooth and introduces noticeable distortion even at 320kbps, especially on the extreme highs and lows.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

I use EAC with LAME @ 224kbps constant bitrate.

Oh yeah, since we're on the topic of bitrate, I have a question. If you have a song that's ripped at say, 128kbps, could you decompress it into lossless wav and then recompress it at a different bitrate like 224kbps? Or is the quality lost forever when the song is compressed?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
I use EAC with LAME @ 224kbps constant bitrate.

Oh yeah, since we're on the topic of bitrate, I have a question. If you have a song that's ripped at say, 128kbps, could you decompress it into lossless wav and then recompress it at a different bitrate like 224kbps? Or is the quality lost forever when the song is compressed?

That would make it worse. The song has portions of it stripped forever when it's compressed. If you use that scheme you'll compress it again and strip more information off.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

I see, that's what I thought. Thanks.