music bitrate

[wonderboy2005]

earlier, i was looking for a particular album on IRC. i found 2 versions: 1 encoded at 256kbs and the other 192kbs. ofcourse, itried the 256 first, but no such luck. so i got the 192, which was about 3/4 the size. anyway, this got me thinking.... what do you guys prefer for bitrates?

[Psilaxs]

128-160 is fine for me.

Though i won't complain if it is higher.

The only reason i may seek out higher then 128K is that 128k is the default for most ripping programs. If someone rips it at 160 or above, you know they weren't just some noob making a really poor rip.

[wapazoid]

I always rip and encode my own CD's. You just can't rely on the output from other users, unless you trust their encoding methods and sources. There's way too many people playing the transcoding game (i.e. under the assumption that re-encoding a 128kbps file to a 160+ will actually "add" quality). Ofcourse, this action is worthy of a public hanging. Anyways, my choice for lossy is .mpc "Braindead" profile (average 240+).

[FreakinWeasel]

From some sources I get 320, but from most I'm ok with 128. It's not great but it also doesn't tie up a guys computer if the person I'm DL from is on a slower connection. But once in a while when I'm looking for an album, I will search out 320 or 192 for archival purposes.

[Sockfulloflove]

For full albums I prefer 192k or more. For EP's or just single mp3's, 128k or more will do for me.

[simian]

192k or better usually. Or VBR at around that range. I don't go lower than 160k unless it's spoken word. I like making mp3 cds for my main stereo, and I can really spot the drop in quality at 128k with my stereo. Even with my computer, which has a decent audio setup, the difference is obvious.

Also, I cancel downloads to songs that are encoded with the Xing encoder. Infamous for crappy rips. I check for this using Encspot®. This program will give a wealth of information about the mp3. Including the encoder used and the quality of rip.
You can find this tool here: http://cd-rw.org/software/audio_software/mp3_tools/encspot.cfm

[rainbowdemon]

No less than 128. But ripping my own cd's to share:320. Musicmatch Jukebox can do this.:wings

[simian]

Originally posted by agreedymonkey
File size is no object to me, so I rip at 192vbr --alt preset standard.

same here. Using EAC with LAME.






/me throws more poop at agreedymonkey ;)

[CCSDUDE]

OGG @ 450kbs VBR....

Sounds great...

[REDO]

I go for 192 or higher as well. But I think I have some in my collection that sound really crappy. I need to sift through my collection and delete the bad ones.

[Kevin06906]

i download 129 and over. Nothing less than 129 though.

[FutureIverson]

On my 40 GB hard drive i'll go over 192 so i don't get the RIAA version for sure. Otherwise i'll take anything over 96. You need over atleast an 80, maybe a 60 for the amount of music i have to use 320. I have a program that does a good job of changing bit rate from say 128 to 320

[phalkon30]

192k or higher. I preffer VBR Alt - preset standard 32-320k though. Great file size, awesome sound.

[Dman212]

128 or higher for me. The more and more I started to listen to mp3s the differences between 128s and 192s started to become much more apparent to me. If I was given a choice between a 128 or a 192 I'd download the 192. Ah hell, I don't know any technical stuff about sound compression anyway...

[agreedymonkey]

Originally posted by simian

/me throws more poop at agreedymonkey ;)

Oohh, you're gonna get it now!

[Rickio]

The results of 128kbps extension public listening test

http://cd-rw.org/news/archive/4354.cfm

It has some graphs so I did not copy it and some good info on formats you may not be using or heard of.

I prefer mpc myself now, mainly because a lot of releases on edk2 are now in mpc and I feel for the size they sound better then mp3, now this study seems to confirm that.

peace

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by Rickio
The results of 128kbps extension public listening test

http://cd-rw.org/news/archive/4354.cfm

It has some graphs so I did not copy it and some good info on formats you may not be using or heard of.

I prefer mpc myself now.

peace

MPC? That's not Monkeys audio (APE), right?

[Rickio]

mpc is musepack and not very much heard of really. I see it more then read about it. weird huh?

monkey audio is also great but the files are much larger, for a example a album in monkey audio will be about half the size of the wav file (about 300mb and larger). That is good considering it is perfect, lossless.

But for file sharing most prefer a file for a album around 100mb at most. Well that seems how it goes if you see the albums on ed2k. mpc sounds better but not outrageously better then mp3. But for long term collecting every little bit of quality is good.

[Theinfamousone]

If it's tight song, I'll make sure I get the best quality possible. Otherwise, I don't really care if it's 128.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by Rickio
mpc is musepack and not very much heard of really. I see it more then read about it. weird huh?

monkey audio is also great but the files are much larger, for a example a album in monkey audio will be about half the size of the wav file (about 300mb and larger). That is good considering it is perfect, lossless.

But for file sharing most prefer a file for a album around 100mb at most. Well that seems how it goes if you see the albums on ed2k. mpc sounds better but not outrageously better then mp3. But for long term collecting every little bit of quality is good.

I rip to APE or OGG for 'long term' or swapping.

With APE...yeah it's about half..usually between 300-350mb for a full CD

With OGG it's like 200-230mb per CD @ 450kbs VBR...

While APE is lossless I prefer OGG...it sounds fuller to me so I use it...lol

[begoodbebad]

mp3 at 128 is just terrible,like a cheap tape player. I rip with EAC LAME VBR giving bitrates mostly between 400 and 500, I'm happy with this as on my sound system I can't tell the difference between this and a CD.
For downloading I look for rar archives which are usually EAC LAME 192 or higher, or ape files with a cue sheet so I can burn a disc. Mostly these archives contain a rip log so you can see if it was done properly (saves getting a file thats been compressed twice) .
I think 192 is the absolute minimum for mp3 unless you are listening on some very poor equipment like PC speakers or a chinese portable.
I've used WMA at a 192 and it is fine.
OGG looks really good but I can't face starting again with hundreds of CDs. And my favourite player doesn't yet support it.

I'm impressed with the ape rips I've downloaded and burnt but can someone tell me how it is lossless? If you lose 300MB from an Audio Cd how is this lossless? With music so much is working on the subsonic and subconscious level that any loss is a loss! I know you can burn a full size disc again but are we just kidding ourselves? I mean, half the data was thrown away, what happens?

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by begoodbebad
mp3 at 128 is just terrible,like a cheap tape player. I rip with EAC LAME VBR giving bitrates mostly between 400 and 500, I'm happy with this as on my sound system I can't tell the difference between this and a CD.
For downloading I look for rar archives which are usually EAC LAME 192 or higher, or ape files with a cue sheet so I can burn a disc. Mostly these archives contain a rip log so you can see if it was done properly (saves getting a file thats been compressed twice) .
I think 192 is the absolute minimum for mp3 unless you are listening on some very poor equipment like PC speakers or a chinese portable.
I've used WMA at a 192 and it is fine.
OGG looks really good but I can't face starting again with hundreds of CDs. And my favourite player doesn't yet support it.

I'm impressed with the ape rips I've downloaded and burnt but can someone tell me how it is lossless? If you lose 300MB from an Audio Cd how is this lossless? With music so much is working on the subsonic and subconscious level that any loss is a loss! I know you can burn a full size disc again but are we just kidding ourselves? I mean, half the data was thrown away, what happens?

Zip/Rar type compression....and a few audio tricks that keep you from losing anything.

Same goes for HuffyUV ...kick ass video codec right there...

[reg]

... usually 192 or higher ...

[LeNemo]

I don't download anything less than 192 bitrate, unless I can't find it anywhere for that or more.

For ripping, uberstandard MP3's.

[matt merch]

Originally posted by FutureIverson
I have a program that does a good job of changing bit rate from say 128 to 320


that is a complete waste of time and space there is absolutely no point in encoding to a higher rate from a lower one u cant put back what is not there

[Mr. Mainstream]

128 or betta is fine with me. VBR is great i go with 128 with my mp3 playa.

[muffenme]

:fire

Everyone here talks about MP3, WMA, OGG, etc and 160+ kbps rate and some 240+ kbps and I can live easy with what everybody would call too low to listen to and bad format. Ok, it could be my ears, mind, or whatever but I listen to my music in real audio format, per G2 era. The real audio codic that I incode in is V3.0 of the real audio format which the maxium it supports is either 16 bit, 32 Khz in stereo format or 16 bit, 44.1 Khz in mono. I encode in 16 bit, 16 Khz, Stereo format which is only 40 kbps. Yes I must be the odd ball but I have over 4400 song on a hard drive that I can get only 18.9 GB of data on it and still have room to put other thing on it.

:hole

[eivioolla]

EAC & LAME --alt-preset insane (320kbps).

[jonnymnemonic]

I'd rather have 192k rips than anything else, except a very few timeless-classic type albums that I like 320k.

I have two 200 gig drives, an 80 gig and a 75 gig (and they're all full). So, if I went to 320k for everything, I'd have to delete, well, a lot of stuff. I'll take 128k, or 160k, if it's something hard to find, or if it's a live soundboard (Phish's 128k soundboards sound fine to me).

And to whoever said you can't add what isn't there any longer, technically, that's not true. You CAN add what isn't there. The concept is called interpolation. However, I don't know of any audio software that does it, much less does it well. But it's not toally inconceivable to me that some form of interpolation could be used to boost audio quality of low bitrate streams.

Man, you know when you use the word 'interpolation' before 10 AM that you are a geek. ;)

[cgfiend]

I rip all of my own CD's at 224 kbps (quality 7.0) using OGG. I get MP3's in at least 160 kbps if I can, but I sometimes get rare songs at 128 kbps if I can't find it anywhere at a higher rate.

128 kbps sounds subpar to me. It's tinny, gurgly and you can definitely hear a loss in audio quality.

OGG is the way to go for me. It's pretty hard to hear any degradation at 224 kbps. I rip my CD's using EAC to WAV, then use OGGDropXPD to compress them.

[wapazoid]

posted by jonnymnemonic:

And to whoever said you can't add what isn't there any longer, technically, that's not true. You CAN add what isn't there. The concept is called interpolation. However, I don't know of any audio software that does it, much less does it well. But it's not toally inconceivable to me that some form of interpolation could be used to boost audio quality of low bitrate streams.
If you haven't done any tests yourself, nor know of any software that can "interpolate" a lower bitrate mp3 to the point of even a slight increase in quality, then why make that claim? If you transcode from 128kbps to 320kbps with any capable program, the result is nothing more than an increase in filesize, with NO increase in quality. Once the 128kbps encoding is complete, that's the maximum quality limit.

posted by matt merch:

that is a complete waste of time and space there is absolutely no point in encoding to a higher rate from a lower one u cant put back what is not there
Exactly.

[wonderboy2005]

since i never really specified what i normally download, i shall do so now.

i agree with the majority here.... above 128 seems good enough to me. 192 is what i try to shoot for, since it seems like a perfect balance between filesize and quality. an average album will be about 100mb, and with my audio setup, it doesnt pay to go much higher than that. i do very much appreciate VBR audio, as it keeps the quality while reducing the size, but this doesnt seem to be a very common method, so its a rare occurance that i get VBR.

i have not branched off into other formats, such as ogg and the like, mainly because of compatibility issues. my crappy mp3-cd player will only play mp3s, so thats where im stuck. i am hoping that in the near future some companies will incorperate the abilty to play back these supirior audio formats so that i can use them, but until then, its mp3s for me.

[cgfiend]

To me it's worth the effort to convert them to MP3 (for now). I'd rather have my originals as good as I want (i.e. OGG).

[TipYourBartender]

I can tell the difference between 128 and 192, even on my shit speakers. I always go for 192 or higher, unless I can't find it, or it's a live rip, in which case it's usually 128.

[muffenme]

:fire

It usely take 10 to 20 MB for each CD of mine at the quility that I like it at. Yes I know that to people it is crap but I like it.

:hole

[wonderboy2005]

that has to sound horrible. do you have bad hearing? because i can see that it wouldnt matter as much if you were, but i cant think of any reason anyone with "normal" hearing would want to listen to that hideous unnatural sound that such low bitrates are sure to produce.

[wapazoid]

It usely take 10 to 20 MB for each CD of mine at the quility that I like it at. Yes I know that to people it is crap but I like it.

Wow, I hope you're encoding with mp3PRO. The sound quality is surprisingly good on a portable device.

[serrebi101]

mp3 pro sounds terrible. I heard a 128kbps streme that was mp3 pro, and it sounded messed up, it was dance music, its
www.energy981.com
they use mp3 pro on there brodband streme, and it sounds terrible,
Someone try to put into words why it sucks, I just can't put my finger on it.
Maybe it kicks at lower bitrates, I did like the 24kbps streme that used it,

[wapazoid]

Are you using the mp3pro plug-in (wild guess that you're using winamp 2.xx)? Without it, you won't hear the SBR effect (mp3pro's main feature). For such a small filesize, mp3pro isn't half-bad.

[serrebi101]

so to hear the difference with mp3pro, I have to have a plugin? link?

[wapazoid]

Here you go:
http://www.mp3prozone.com/download_winamp.htm

You should definitely notice a difference if you haven't been using the plug-in.

[Rickio]

oh to answer the question....

192kbps and higher. Either Eac/Lame or Eac/mpc or Eac/ape are what I like.

mpc and ape are always higher bitrates ,but my minimum sound file I'll download is 192 kbps mp3

[The Hunter]

Pretty much the same as Rickio here. 192 or better, except for certain very old country files, that I get for a friend on 56K. Those i download, and check for quality, as the original recordings were not all that good to begin with.

[simon_says_horrible]

re-encode 128bit to 160 or over can increase noise (hissing sound) not the quality. Other instruments in the background like orchestra will become close as mono instead of hearing echoes. Try to play it in your 6.1 Dolby Surround Sound Stereo and you'll hear and sense the difference.

[Jon49]

192 vbr ogg is invincible. no point going any higher...your ears simply cannot tell the difference.

[cgfiend]

I did mine at 224 (OGG) just because I could. :P

[jonnymnemonic]

Not looking for an argument, but interpolation isn't a 'claim', it is a concept. It is, in fact, used, to great effect, in modern television sets to boost VIDEO quality (filling in details that are not actually a part of the AV signal). The effect on video can be amazing - interpolatory TVs make the HAIRS show on the Monsters, Inc monsters, hairs which aren't actually there in the original signal. If they can do that with video (which is more complex than audio), then I see no reason to believe that it is impossible to do the same with audio.

I also wasn't saying that re-encoding to a higher bitrate would EVER be a good idea. Just as with interpolatory televisions, adding the missing data would best be done in real-time. For all I know, there are MP3 players that do this, either hardware or software. But it will NEVER be necessary to up-encode a file, since all such interpolation could be done in real-time. That is, in fact, the whole point of interpolation, to make it unnecessary to have the missing information but to nevertheless gain the benefits as if you DID have it. Up-encoding, even with interpolation, would mean that you were actually storing the interpolated audio (or video), and that's simply not necessary with the speed of today's processors.

And why mention it? I was refuting the assumption that you can't add what isn't there. You can, and it's done every day for people with modern (high-endish) televisions. NASA also uses it extensively for many purposes, including detecting differences in the landscape of low-resolution images from the Jovian satellites (to help determine the potential for life there). It's actually a fairly old concept, as old, actually, as the concept of averaging (which is the very simplest form of interpolation, averaging two values).

[wapazoid]

Not to fire back at you, but I was under the assumption that we were discussing audio encoding on this thread, which isn't quite the same as debating the positive effects of video interpolation for modern day televisions. I've been encoding audio since early '97, and have never come across a single program that offered the option to "fill in missing information" on an .mp3 file, nor any lossy format for that matter for the sake of adding anything resembling an increase in actual audio quality to the file itself. I am aware of wavpack, and it's benefits of storing extra data on a separate file in order to virtually restore the file back into a lossless state if needed, but that's done when encoding it directly from the source...not attempting to add this information once the lossy file is created. You can in fact add noise (dithering/noise shaping) when playing back .mpc files to add the illusion of better quality sound, and this is done in real-time through either through it's software plug-in or hardware capable players. My "assumption" of not being able to add what isn't there is in direct reference to the file itself, and not including real-time playback (which in most cases will achieve nothing if the file is poorly encoded to begin with).

[Digimortal]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
Not looking for an argument, but interpolation isn't a 'claim', it is a concept.

<SNIP>

It's actually a fairly old concept, as old, actually, as the concept of averaging (which is the very simplest form of interpolation, averaging two values).

I think I know what your getting at, it's just that the video analogy is not the easiest one to understand. You put back what you *think* was there, that's what the mp3 codec does anyway, but you can also use hardware or software to do this some more. I always use srs wow thing on winamp (also comes with media player) in an attempt to 'put back' some of the frequencies that were lost in compression and make it sound a bit more like the original.

As for interpolation this works in video because it adds more pixels of information (even if those pixels are a guess). With audio the act of converting from digital to analogue for playback in normal speakers does in effect average out the digital bit stream to create an anologue wave form that we can hear.

Hope this helps clears things up a bit, and feel free to help out with a better explanation if you can ;-)

[Lamourlady]

i rip and download at 192.
the happy medium.
mine r all single mp3's.....i have no albums or movies.

[serrebi101]

Originally posted by wapazoid
Here you go:
http://www.mp3prozone.com/download_winamp.htm

You should definitely notice a difference if you haven't been using the plug-in. I have been trying to get this thing to work properly for the last 12 ours kinda, lol. I first just instaled it, and it worked on the first streme I played, then all other stremes afterwards were silence, so, I re instaled winamp, after doing a full uninstal offcourse, and still the same problem, ga, maybe they should work out the bugs first before they try and convert all shoutcast stremes, lol.
K, now I've made 3 posts here without saying what bitrate I listen to, I listen to mostly 192kbps, or 128, if done right, there is no difference.
However, most people don't take care, so yes, I can say that 192 sounds better, and trouthfully I'd take it over 128, lol.

[Ken17625]

I encode/download at 192 or above (any mp3/ogg vbr or cbr).

If its a live track, or something I just can't find at my desired bitrate, then i'll take what I can get.

[Caitlyn Marble]

My minimum for downloading is 160, unless its really rare. then I'll settle for anything less.

I try to rip at 192, though some CD's I make allowances for, like when I ripped Interpol's Turn on The Bright Lights, it sounded very muddy. Reriped at 224. better, but still muddy. 256. perfect.

I always use LAME. My friends use Real player to rip, and that uses XING. whenever they offer to burn CD's for me, I always refuse. I can't listen to something that's supposedly at 192 but sounds like 112. I'l do it myself, thanks.....

[wonderboy2005]

Originally posted by Caitlyn Marble
My friends use Real player to rip, and that uses XING. whenever they offer to burn CD's for me, I always refuse. I can't listen to something that's supposedly at 192 but sounds like 112. I'l do it myself, thanks.....
right on. a friend of mine doesnt have a 2nd CD drive, so he rips his albums with WMP9 at like 64kb/s then burns a CD using those craptastic files. ive tried to explain to him that he could not only save time, but save quality by just ripping wav files, but his response is "who cares about quality?" i felt like smaking him us side the head for that, but i held it in. by the way, he is problably the 2nd most technically inclined person in my class. that tells you a whole lot right there.

[THC]

I prefer 8kb/s realplayer songs. Mono. I like my music to sound liek it was made off a casette tape dub of a old tape whic hwas recorded over 20 times, and then ran through a chorus effect and a eq by someone who has no clue about the settings. :) of corse, thats what i download.


When i do share music i rip my rip at 320 or 256. Rarely lower. Then i toss them in a zip with a musicmatch or winamp playlist for easier burning.

[Winphuk]

I usually rip at 192.
Downloading, depends on the availability of the song.
I'll take the highest bitrate I can find.

[Andy L]

I used to rip at LAME --alt preset standard, but these days, I rip CDs into lossless APE format (roughly 800-900kbps) using EAC and Monkey's Audio. It uses up a hell of a lot of hard disc space (around 25MB per song), but for me, it's worth it for the quality.

As for downloading, I try to get lossless files (APE or FLAC) on USENET whenever I can. However, there's just not that many available, so I'll usually ended up downloading MP3s or OGGs instead. If I download an MP3, it has to be 160kbps at the absolute minimum, and encoded using LAME or Fraunhofer codecs. Anything else I'll just delete - if you ask me, the Blade and Xing encoders are the tool of the devil...

[neoufo51]

Hmmm, if its mp3, I need --alt preset standards or no deal

I tend to rip my own with EAC and encode to ogg or mpc. My rips need a high standard of quality or they don't leave my computer.

[random]

the human ear cannot tell the difference after 192, so it just really matters on how much hd space u got

[Krell]

Originally posted by wanked
the human ear cannot tell the difference after 192, so it just really matters on how much hd space u got

Now you go find me a study where in blind tests this is proven. I also challenge you to factor in that some people have sound card, systems or headphones that will make the most of the added information unwrapped in the higher bitrates.

I'm not being dogmatic so much that you need scientific evidence to support your claim, but that you make posts just to have something to say on any given subject.

[neoufo51]

Originally posted by wanked
the human ear cannot tell the difference after 192, so it just really matters on how much hd space u got

THATS COMPLETE BS, you have no idea what you're talking about, go find proof of that, you can't. Ever hear of psychoacoustics, noise shaping? NO, cuz you just misinformed people with that unfounded statement.

Lemme guess, some buddy of yours said so, so its true, right? No, there's much more to it than just simple bitrates. If this was a well known fact, this thread wouldn't be 5 pages long.

[moneoa]

for stuff like live sets usually on p2p it seems alot of ppl encode at 128. So for most live sets I have it tends to be 128 also (I guess nobody changes the default on thier software).
For most studio albums tho I like 192 or higher.

[shawners]

what really is God awful, low biterate on live files, they take the tape recorder to the show and endup getting a girl next to them screeming around the device!!.. and its in 96kbs. Some live shows are awesome, too bad Riaa couldnt market those.. OH wait they can = ).. Emagine giving your email, address and ticket stub number to the guy when you leave the show as well as money.. And they mail you the disc of the show =)

[moneoa]

I always look these days for 320 or loss less codecs like VOB et cetera

[YWD67]

I have found that anything above 128 does nothing for the average listener and just adds to space being taken up on my hard drive.

[Feather]

no such thing as average listener just average equipment used to listen to it. some bose heads and premium mp3 player and mp3 192 or above and in bliss

[Wikied]

I just checked and it looks like everything I downloaded recently was over 300