Ripped CD Bitrate?

[Mill]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
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.

I can tell the difference between 128 and 320 on my laptop speakers, so whatever.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea..128 for mp3 is a tad low..way below cd at that point

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
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.

I can tell the difference between 128 and 320 on my laptop speakers, so whatever.

Usually people like you would quarrel with people such as myself that listen to it on a full blown stereo.
Arguments liek this are pointless.


Now I say, find something that enjoy, and STFU:beer:

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
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.

I can tell the difference between 128 and 320 on my ears, so whatever.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Gurck]

EAC -> 192bit ogg, beats any mp3 and is a close approximation of CD sound. I rip my favorites to flac, just because.

 

[EyeMWing]

The common argument against higher bitrates and lossless formats is that only high end equipment shows the difference. On the contrary - an original SoundBlaster ISA and $2 computer speakers shows a marked difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC.

 

[veggz]

I used to rip at 128, but switched to 192. The difference is especially noticable when the band isn't just beating the crap out of their instruments. Classical has to be ripped at a MINIMUM of 256 IMO to sound recognizable. Try listening to samples side by side and if you can't hear the difference then don't bother.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea, I did a pretty simple test like a year ago, with LAME 3.94 or similar, and posted two files, wav's of the mp3's at 128kbit, and another at 192kbit.

The votes were somthing like 23 thought 128kbit sounded best, and 8 thought the 192kbit sounded best.

Then after I posted the results, the 192kbit jumped to like 40 votes.. hehehe


On another note, as far as audio encoding goes, check Tuner2 for some incredible sounding low bitrate streams.. They have 24kbit streams that sound better then 112kbit mp3 streams. You'll need Winamp (with the aac plugin) or Foobar2k.

 

[pennylane]

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.

:thumbsup:

Perfect. I rip to alt preset standard for my ipod (and general compatibility) along with FLAC for lossless backups.

I prefer EAC over CDex.

Visit http://www.bestmp3guide.com/ for more details.

Goosemaster is right, well-recorded classical in general is the easiest way to tell the difference between lossy and lossless codecs (ie, mp3 versus FLAC).

 

[Vic]

I can tell the difference between 128kbps and higher quality encodings. I have thousands of CD's, rip my own for my mp3 jukebox, and I would not insist on higher quality encodings if it were not for the fact that I can hear the difference.
It's at 192kbps CBR and above where my ears begin to have some difficulty distinguishing from the original CD (provided it is properly ripped using LAME), and as a compromise I settled on 256Kbps ABR for a mix of highest quality and least use of space (as that encoding method uses roughly the same space as 192 CBR, but provides a higher bitrate when necessary for fidelity).

 

[jtusa]

LAME at "alt-preset insane" is pretty much the best MP3 can do, correct?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: jtusa4
LAME at "alt-preset insane" is pretty much the best MP3 can do, correct?

Yes (3.90.3 or 3.96.1), but I doubt you'll get more than placebo vs. extreme--and I've still only found two songs for which I can ABX extreme from standard.