Optimal bit-rate for mp3

tradetime

Fifer wrote: »

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.

DAP ?
Yes thanx for that Fifer it would appear that it is an individual thing, which I had to a degree expected. I suppose. I just wondered would someone pop up with an "Actually it has been scientifically proven that the human ear cannot distinguish any improvement above xxxkbps, " Which is probably the case, I just wondered what that figure might be. Obviously I'd imagine that level would differ from a high end system with quality speakers in an otherwise quiet environment, to little stick in your ear headphones

tradetime

aliEnRIK wrote: »

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

I hadn't really considered this at the point of posting as I was focussed on one question, but it would clearly be a good idea to rip at a "quality bitrate for your hi-fi and convert to a lower rate for a portable device.

Fifer

tradetime wrote: »

I hadn't really considered this at the point of posting as I was focussed on one question, but it would clearly be a good idea to rip at a "quality bitrate for your hi-fi and convert to a lower rate for a portable device.

That's what I do. I rip to flac for home listening then transcode to ogg vorbis for my ...

tradetime wrote: »

DAP ?

Digital Audio Player. What most people (incorrectly or at least incompletely) call MP3 players.

tradetime

Fifer wrote: »

That's what I do. I rip to flac for home listening then transcode to ogg vorbis for my ...

Digital Audio Player. What most people (incorrectly or at least incompletely) call MP3 players.

LOL thanx for the definition, guilty as charged. Having been a bit of a nomad for many years it is a long time since I had a decent hi-fi, but I will bear that in mind when I eventually settle in one place and invest in one.

tradetime

Just thought I'd add this to all the helpful advice/views provided, in case anyone else wonders the same questions I have.
http://www.mp3-tech.org/
they conduct a series of listening tests and give their opinion.

Marty_J

TorrestheGreat wrote: »

The quality of speakers makes a big difference, too. In my car anything less than 320 constant bit rate sounds bloody awful, but the same files sound acceptable on my ipod thru the earphones

That's interesting, I've heard of some people who say they can't really tell the difference in their car (what with all the background noise and the less than optimally placed speakers), but who can tell a difference on their iPod. I guess like you say, it just depends on the sort of speakers you have.

Fifer wrote: »

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.

I've heard of one rather high profile mastering engineer who rips all the CDs he buys at 160 kbps AAC, and then gives the CD away (copyright issues anyone? lol), because he says he finds it hard to tell the difference between the two and he'd rather have a smaller file.

For my part, I find it very hard to tell the difference between a 256 kbps AAC VBR file, and a losslessly compressed one, whether on my main system or my iPod (using Shure SE530 earphones). I've also tried spotting the difference in an acoustically treated room on high end monitors, and it's not easy. There's a clear difference at 128 kbps, but as you get higher it gets harder to tell, which is how I arrived at 256 kbps AAC VBR.

The room you're listening in makes one of the biggest differences; it's very hard to compare small changes in audio quality when you can have peaks and troughs of 10 dB or more all over the audible frequency range, whcih is probably another reason many people find it hard to tell the difference.

Fifer

Marty_J wrote: »

I've heard of one rather high profile mastering engineer who rips all the CDs he buys at 160 kbps AAC, and then gives the CD away (copyright issues anyone? lol), because he says he finds it hard to tell the difference between the two and he'd rather have a smaller file.

That might explain the mastering quality on some modern albums.

Marty_J

Fifer wrote: »

That might explain the mastering quality on some modern albums.

Hehe....I think you might be onto something there!

BexTech

Could also be the drop in dynamic range.

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm