Optimal bit-rate for mp3

tomstickland

I burnt some iTunes files to disc and they sounded very flat compared to an original CD. This is on decent headphones and an average CD player.
You are chucking data away, I can sense something different about it, it all goes a bit mushy. Listen to a music radio program on the BBC listen again player and that's the effect, but not so strong.

tradetime

BexTech wrote: »

The walkman probably wouldn't support flac, also takes up quite a lot of space.

VBR allows the bitrate to vary throughout the MP3 so some parts may be 32kbps, some 112kbps, some 128kbps, some 192kbps and some 320kbps for example. So you don't have to waste 320kbps on parts that are fine at 23, 112, 128, 192 etc, but use higher bitrates on parts that need it.

Yes just read up on that and have got the idea of it will have to experiment.

randomtask_2

The better the equipment, the more you're likely to tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps. Higher quality speakers, headphones, amps etc help distinguish the sound compression. Basically, the music will sound as good as the weakest link in the audio chain, which for most is either the headphones or the level of encoding (i.e. what's discussed here).

Though one can argue that it's the listener's ears would be the weakest discriminator...particularly given the rubbish that comprises some of the music out there now!! But that's another debate altogether...

tomstickland

Quality of audio signal is entirely different from quality of the content though!

I remember a time when people claimed that a CD sounded as if the orchestra was actually in the room or whatever. Total tosh - why would a recording ever sound like the original event? Consider the response of a microphone, all the mixing systems, storage, and speakers/headphones. Brian Eno said just that - why should a recording ever sound like a live event. Treat the recording process as part of the artistic creation.

Marty_J

I remember when people complained about how CDs would be the death of quality audio, just as people say the same thing about compressed formats. They're getting a lot better though, just as CDs did.

Now, if I could just get decently mastered copies of the Beatles albums, I would be happy!

[Deleted User]

Having DJ'd in nightclubs with rather large sound systems, 192kbps is the very least I'd use. I prefer mine to be in VBR V2, but it's entirely dependent on your set up. Go for 192kbps as your target.

Fifer

Sound quality suffers as soon as you apply lossy compression. Whether you notice it or not at higher bit rates is debatable and depends on the quality of your equipment, the listening environment, your hearing and how tolerant you are of compression artefacts. On my main system, the difference between 192kbs and flac is as night and day. On a DAP, 192kbs is perfectly acceptable.

There is no generic answer. Each person has to find a level that is acceptable to them.

Nex0

I use vbr and lame when I can.

tradetime

anewhope wrote: »

Having DJ'd in nightclubs with rather large sound systems, 192kbps is the very least I'd use. I prefer mine to be in VBR V2, but it's entirely dependent on your set up. Go for 192kbps as your target.

Yes, 192kbps seems a reasonable trade off for file size, and I suspect the real weakness in the chain as randomtask says would be my ears 192kbps sounds fine on my mp3.

aliEnRIK

randomtask wrote: »

The better the equipment, the more you're likely to tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps. Higher quality speakers, headphones, amps etc help distinguish the sound compression. Basically, the music will sound as good as the weakest link in the audio chain, which for most is either the headphones or the level of encoding (i.e. what's discussed here).

Though one can argue that it's the listener's ears would be the weakest discriminator...particularly given the rubbish that comprises some of the music out there now!! But that's another debate altogether...

Completely agree with that. I have as high as I can get it as my hifi is fairly 'high end' stuff.