Ripped CD Bitrate?

[Kelemvor]

Howdy,

I'm playing with ripping some songs off my CDs and know that there's lots of different bitrate that can e used. 128 as standard up to 192 as a standard for better quality. Question is, can most people tell the difference? I ripped a CD both ways and coudln't really notice a difference when I played the same song at both settings...

I'm using WIMP 10 to rip the songs and can choose from WMA, MP3, etc and whatver bitrate I want. I used WMA 128 and WMA 192 and couldn't tell the difference.

Are there certain circumstances or types of songs or anything that make the difference more noticeable than others or are my ears just not as sensitive as some?

 

[Quasmo]

its more crisp at the higher bitrates. try 128 and 320

 

[EvilYoda]

search and ye shall find...yes, some can. and yes, the song and recording will make a difference as well.

 

[nakedfrog]

There's a lot of factors that come into play, including the actual encoder that you're using. If it's just for your personal collection, you might as well just use what sounds best to you.

 

[bandana163]

Try ripping in .ape or .flac.
Lossless compression takes up more space than lossy, but it sounds exactly like the CD.

 

[randomlinh]

i'd say 90% of the ppl can't tell the dif between cd and a VBR LAME encoding, say using -alt preset standard @ 160kbps. I can barely notice, i don't care much either, I'm no audiophile, nor will I ever have high end equipment that will really show a difference.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: lnguyen
i'd say 90% of the ppl can't tell the dif between cd and a VBR LAME encoding, say using -alt preset standard @ 160kbps. I can barely notice, i don't care much either, I'm no audiophile, nor will I ever have high end equipment that will really show a difference.

so how does the opinion of someone who doesn't care about sound quality and doesn't have quality equipment turn into 90% of the people out there?

oh wait, that IS 90% of the people out there. nevermind.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Text

Please observe the Tearing of a New Asshole with respect to bitrates.

- M4H

 

[SludgeFactory]

no most people can't tell the difference (or don't have the equipment to do so), within the last few months somebody posted blind tests here at 320 and 128 (IIRC), and from the polls most people were just guessing.

I would pick what sounds good to you and not waste space with anything higher. And yes your choice of music matters, and you also have to consider the trend in mastering over the last ~10 years. The state of modern pop/rock CD mastering is such that most of the dynamic range and details are lost and the whole thing is squeezed into a massively-blurred mess, so chopping out 90% of the info with lossy compression isn't really going to hurt much more. When the source is that screwed up, I find there is little benefit in full redbook audio over decently-encoded MP3, it's going to sound like sh!t regardless.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: lnguyen
i'd say 90% of the ppl can't tell the dif between cd and a VBR LAME encoding, say using -alt preset standard @ 160kbps. I can barely notice, i don't care much either, I'm no audiophile, nor will I ever have high end equipment that will really show a difference.

so how does the opinion of someone who doesn't care about sound quality and doesn't have quality equipment turn into 90% of the people out there?

oh wait, that IS 90% of the people out there. nevermind.

i mush my thoughts together from what i've seen, there's barely anyone I know that gives a rats ass if it's above 160

 

[pennylane]

Yeah most of the time it doesn't really matter. Though with certain tracks it can be obvious. I do 192 VBR (alt preset standard) because I'm in a hub that requires it.

 

[radioouman]

My preference has always been 192 or 256k for my own use. Sometimes 128 sounds bad. Depends on the source.

 

[jtusa]

Storage isn't an issue so I went 320kbps.

EAC + lame > *.

 

[Kelemvor]

If I were to do 192 (just for an example) would there normally be much sound difference in an MP3 vs a WMA or some other type?

 

[jpeyton]

320Kbps VBR, I can't tell the diff on my speakers. Maybe someone with real Hi-Fi can. I can notice the crappiness of MP3s at 192Kbps CBR and lower.

 

[0roo0roo]

yes first mistake is not using lame + eac or razor lame. then just simply use one of the -alt presets... basically settings tweaked out for simple use. i use the one just above standard.. i think its -alt preset extreme ? anyways it ends up about 190-220~kbs average mp3. might as well rip it half decent the first time... and space is not a consideration anymore, the space mp3 takes gets ever more insignifcant each year as our hd's get larger anyways.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Yes. I rip at 320k. Disk space is cheap. I use CDex, but there are better encoders out there.

 

[Kelemvor]

What is the best encoder to use for a noob? Any pages that have a simple walkthrough? I've been using WMP10 since it's all automated and seems to work fine but I have no idea what encoder is built into that program so I'm open to anything. Some had recommended using Apple iTunes' built in decoder at 192 as well but I've never used that program either.

 

[pennylane]

EAC + Lame. I'm kind of busy right now but later tonight I'll post more crap.

 

[Cerb]

Encoder makes a difference, as does the ripper.
WMP, Audiograbber, and iTunes won't help when it comes to ripped errors. CDex and EAC can (EAC being better, but you'll want to read a couple setup guides, as it can be configured to be as easy as audiograbber, but doesn't come that way).
LAME --preset standard is probably the way to go. I use extreme, because I found two songs I could ABX on my PSC805->KSC50. Check HA's recommended LAME settings and EAC setup. You can set it for user defined encoder, then copy & paste whichever string you like for settings (they include tags and all).

Lastly, it's not that much about the equipment (look at what I've got--nothing amazing). If the output equipment is decent, it's listening to the music for hundreds and hundreds of hours that get you able to hear the difference.

 

[yhelothar]

Large majority of the people can't hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbs... even ATOT geeks, as shown on a blind test I did earlier.
Just use Lame VBR Standard at 160kbps.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/encoding.ars

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

I can distinguish 128 from 160 easily. 192 compared to 160 is less noticeable but still fairly easy to pick up. Anything above that is pretty much the same to me. I rip at 192 vbr and to my ear the difference betwen that and a wav file is so very very slight I might just be imagining it. However, between my stock speakers in my F150, my iPod, and my Logitech Z340's I'm not exactly working with audiophile quality equipment here.

 

[Allio]

--alt-preset standard with Lame 3.90.3 or a stable higher version, ripped using EAC or CDex.
--alt-preset extreme if you're looking for a placebo effect and have a lot of disk space.
MPC if you're hardcore.
FLAC if you're looking to make lossless backups.

NO wmp, NO itunes.

END.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Allio
--alt-preset standard with Lame 3.90.3 or a stable higher version, ripped using EAC or CDex.
--alt-preset extreme if you're looking for a placebo effect and have a lot of disk space.
MPC if you're hardcore.
FLAC if you're looking to make lossless backups.

NO wmp, NO itunes.

END.

Classical music makes mincemeat of anything but lossless. err....GOOD classical with great sound engineers...ie Telarc and such...