music files lower bit rate 128kbps to 320kbps

Stubert

192kbps is roughly CD quality (in the scheme of things obviously there is some loss etc etc)

You can definitely notice the difference between 128 and 192. I'd say listen to mp3s 192 is a minimum. But I usually rip at about 220 VBR.

wolfman

192kbps, as mentioned is a good trade off between sound and quality.

When I was storing my music in the mp3 file format, I used a variable bit-rate of around 220kbps (same as the above poster).

I ran some blind AB tests though, and for my set up could always recognise an mp3 from an AAC, Ogg, or original CD. Even at 320kbps I could tell, it just didn't sound the same.

In the end I went with Ogg Vorbis at Q7 which is about 220kbps. That gives me a transparent equivalent of the cd.

Also if you're encoding as high as 320kbps with mp3, you'll end up with files often over 10mb (nearer to 15mb sometimes), in which case you might as well just go the extra 5-10mb and use a Lossless (not Lossy like mp3) format like Flac. That way you lose no quality at all from the cd.

mascherano

wolfman wrote: »

192kbps, as mentioned is a good trade off between sound and quality.

When I was storing my music in the mp3 file format, I used a variable bit-rate of around 220kbps (same as the above poster).

I ran some blind AB tests though, and for my set up could always recognise an mp3 from an AAC, Ogg, or original CD. Even at 320kbps I could tell, it just didn't sound the same.

In the end I went with Ogg Vorbis at Q7 which is about 220kbps. That gives me a transparent equivalent of the cd.

Also if you're encoding as high as 320kbps with mp3, you'll end up with files often over 10mb (nearer to 15mb sometimes), in which case you might as well just go the extra 5-10mb and use a Lossless (not Lossy like mp3) format like Flac. That way you lose no quality at all from the cd.

I have been called an idiot for saying I can tell a 320 kb mp3 from uncompressed music. To my ears 192k sounds bloody awful, and 128 is appalling (i dont use earphones). Lossless compression is the way to go I just wish everybody would rip to this standard.

Donnie

I don't think it's a matter of being able to hear the difference. 192kbps for mp3 is the minimum I would recommend before which the sound is subject to unacceptable degradation. As I travel a lot, I use WMA at 128kbps, which is acceptable for my usage and the limited capacity of my mp3 player.

For High Fidelity usage, I don't use any compression at all.

Lyrrad

I think that just quoting numbers (128 - 320) is missing the point. It is possible to drive at 80mph in a 1000cc hatchback and also possible in a 3500cc V8 saloon. Same speed, different ride!


I personnaly use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) for ripping in conjunction with LAME encoder.

I have yet to find a better combination although I must admit I have not ripped CD's for about 9 months.

You will find that some files are rejected for ripping, but it does ensure you are only able to produce quality MP3's

I find it hard to follow this thread without the mention of these 2 pieces of free software.

wolfman

mascherano wrote: »

I have been called an idiot for saying I can tell a 320 kb mp3 from uncompressed music. To my ears 192k sounds bloody awful, and 128 is appalling (i dont use earphones). Lossless compression is the way to go I just wish everybody would rip to this standard.

True, and hard drives are so cheap these days you may as well store you music at a higher bit rate anyway.


AudioGalaxy is a nice free application for encoding mp3's using LAME. EAC is arguably the best, but not quite as "out of the box" as Audio Galaxy. That said, if you do feel you're able to use and configure EAC it's definitely worth using it.

patwa_2

Basically in layman's terms you can think of it as the CD being 'perfect'. You can compress downwards from that to whatever extent you like and the sound quality degrades the further you compress. So you're introducing 'errors' and 'noise' into as you compress.

If you then try to de-compress (raise the bitrate) of an already compressed track, all you're really going to do is magnify the already present errors and noise in the file. It won't undo the compression in terms of better quality. Once you're compressed (which remember also removes some data from the track) that data is lost forever and can't be reclaimed.

H.

ollyk

wolfman wrote: »

192kbps, as mentioned is a good trade off between sound and quality.

When I was storing my music in the mp3 file format, I used a variable bit-rate of around 220kbps (same as the above poster).

I ran some blind AB tests though, and for my set up could always recognise an mp3 from an AAC, Ogg, or original CD. Even at 320kbps I could tell, it just didn't sound the same.

In the end I went with Ogg Vorbis at Q7 which is about 220kbps. That gives me a transparent equivalent of the cd.

Also if you're encoding as high as 320kbps with mp3, you'll end up with files often over 10mb (nearer to 15mb sometimes), in which case you might as well just go the extra 5-10mb and use a Lossless (not Lossy like mp3) format like Flac. That way you lose no quality at all from the cd.

Double blind test or were you selecting the source?

nickmack

Lyrrad wrote: »

I think that just quoting numbers (128 - 320) is missing the point. It is possible to drive at 80mph in a 1000cc hatchback and also possible in a 3500cc V8 saloon. Same speed, different ride!

I personnaly use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) for ripping in conjunction with LAME encoder.

I've used LAME for years and found it to be right up there in terms of MP3 encoding. The encoding engine you use can make a difference to the quality. Although bit rates play a big part, a decent encoder at 160kbps could still sound better than a poor one at 192kbps with the same track.

ollyk

andipandi wrote: »

i have some music files at 128kbps,if i upgrade to 320kbps will i get a better sound quality?

thanks in advance

Andy

what don't you like about the current sound quality? 128 isn't great but it shouldn't be that bad unless you have some real nice gear tbh....

Do a double blind test on these mates of yours to see if they can hear any difference LOL!