Quality -V- Quantity?

the_syco

So... with everyone have Zens, iPod's, Archos things... which do you prefer: lots of songs, or fewer songs with better quality?

Me, I like them to sound very good, so I rip them at 320kbps, but uh, used to rip them at 128kbps, and I think its a big difference. What do you think?

Oh, and people/mods, this about music you own, but rip onto CD's, and not stuff you download.

Doctor J

I think 192 is sufficient for anything I use the oul ipod for. Not much point in going higher than that, you don't really get sufficiently better quality to justify the extra disk usage.

Makaveli

320 is a waste of space. Why encode silence at 320KBps?

I rip at v0 setting.

Sinfonia

128 for alright stuff
160 for most
192 for better stuff
320 for absolute sonic masterpieces (Dark Side and Lateralus are the only ones I can think of, I'm sure I've done more)


Edit: Just realised I didn't actually answer the question: Quality

Kolodny

192 for everything generally. I don't notice much of a difference if it's higher, but then again I have crappy earphones on my iPod at the moment so it's hard to tell.

Zaph

192 for everything, although if space on my iRiver ever became a problem I suppose I would have to drop down a bit. Can't see any point in ripping at 320, if I feel the need to listen at top quality I put the CD on.

cornbb

I used to rip at 192 cause I thought I couldn't hear the difference. Now I'd swear I can so everything new is getting ripped at 320. 128 just sounds like shíte now.

I find it kind of amazing how people are prepared to accept inferior quality in a new music format tbh, you'd thing the next Big Thing after CDs would improve on their audio quality, not reduce it.

Doctor J

It just illustrates how little the masses actually listen to music, rather than just have it on to kill silence while their mind is principally occupied by something else.

Makaveli

Seriously the quality to size ratio of 320 makes it a bad choice.

If you really want good quality, encode them as FLAC. It'll be considerably bigger but it's lossless.

the_syco

cornbb wrote:

I used to rip at 192 cause I thought I couldn't hear the difference. Now I'd swear I can so everything new is getting ripped at 320. 128 just sounds like shíte now.

I find it kind of amazing how people are prepared to accept inferior quality in a new music format tbh, you'd thing the next Big Thing after CDs would improve on their audio quality, not reduce it.

Phew! Thought it was just me:D Everything used to be 192, but after listening to some metal at 320, 192 just sounds, well, "bassy", and unclear.

GhostInTheRuins

320 Insane quality but then I re-encode or re-rip to 128 for my mp3 player.

LilKitty

Stupidly I didn't read what the poll was actually about voted quality, upon seeing what is was actually about I would have voted quanity:o . Yeah I want enough quality for the songs to sound alright for me but to be small enough so I can fits lots in(actually I don't have an ipod or mp3 player as yet but this would be the case if I had one. Also I'm taking into consideration that I can't afford a player that has heaps of space like a ipod mini or something like that.

Giblet

VBR 192 (v0), accept no substitute.
320k is useless, VBR will encode what needs to be encoded at 320, but everything that doesn't gets encoded lower. You would have 320k silence, which is wastage.

320 Insane quality but then I re-encode or re-rip to 128 for my mp3 player.

Generally not a good idea to transcode, even from higher to lower. Re-rip to 128 if you have to.

Makaveli

Finally someone else who sees sense.

Goe Giblet!

311

I use to rip everything to 320kbps. I knew it was overkill ,but I've 30GB of my own mp3's ,that I've individually track named myself.
Burning stuff and playing it ,never sounds right I think. I don't think any sort of mp encoding is without it's flaws.

I don't think mp3 players have great quality ,they're suppose to be handy thats all.
Unless you've a B&O 9000 or something ,I don't think it makes a difference really.

padi89

cornbb wrote:

I find it kind of amazing how people are prepared to accept inferior quality in a new music format tbh, you'd thing the next Big Thing after CDs would improve on their audio quality, not reduce it.

Well most people are happy out with ibuds and your bog standard speakers so why should they bother.There aint much point in people ripping to a high quality when they dont have the hardware to appreciate it.

Ronan H

This is very interesting indeed, i have been ripping at 128 for years but im gonna go this minute and rip my favourite CD at 320 and see what it sounds like in comparison, there could be world of quality sound out there that i never knew about!

Excited Head

Anima

This is very interesting indeed, i have been ripping at 128 for years but im gonna go this minute and rip my favourite CD at 320 and see what it sounds like in comparison, there could be world of quality sound out there that i never knew about!

You won't notice the difference on crappy headphones. You'd need to compare on a decent set of speakers.

Ronan H

Anima wrote:

You won't notice the difference on crappy headphones. You'd need to compare on a decent set of speakers.

And that indeed is what i found. Couldnt identify any difference whatsoever, but that is to be expected from a laptop with a pair of stock headphones...

Havent got a sound system good enough to justify that kind of megabytes just yet!

Megabyte Head

DerekD Goldfish

Used to rip at 128 now everything is at least 198 but newesr stuff 228
I geting rid of my I-Audio the crappy 10k file limit even though its a 60gb player anoys me. Ive got arought 130Gb of music on my comp and(90% of which is 128) I want a decent mp3 player with losts of space and no file limits and not made my apple as they are spawn of satan. any recomendations?
sorry for tan gent but I think its at least semi relevent

Makaveli

Never knew there was a file limit. Is it an X5?

What if you installed Rockbox on it would that get around the limit?

John

Lossless all the time (discman you see)

Makaveli

So the point of your post is what exactly? Considering the thread is about ripping cds.

John

Makaveli wrote:

So the point of your post is what exactly? Considering the thread is about ripping cds.

Is it? I thought it was whether you wanted lots of songs or fewer songs at a better quality? Syco started the ball rolling by talking about mp3 players and encoding quality. I don't use an mp3 player because I like my music to sound good, mp3s are fine on PC speakers but when I'm on the move I like to listen to my albums as best as I can as I don't always have the time to listen to them on a good stereo at home. I am firmly on the side of quality so I use good headphones and a lossless format. That's my point.

DerekD Goldfish

Makaveli wrote:

Never knew there was a file limit. Is it an X5?

What if you installed Rockbox on it would that get around the limit?

yes its an X5 if you install more than 10k tracks then some of your folders ust dissapear when you go to play them.

Indeed after posting in on another forum I have found out that 3rd party firmware may solve the film limit problem.
Battery issue still exists though

badgerbadger

i use 128 don't find any difference from c.d.s but i probly have crappy speakers
super audio cds like big guns the best of rory gallagher are better quality but you need the right player to get the full quality but it does sound better than normal cd on a standard cd player the format jus didn't take off

grumpytrousers

John wrote:

Is it? I thought it was whether you wanted lots of songs or fewer songs at a better quality? Syco started the ball rolling by talking about mp3 players and encoding quality. I don't use an mp3 player because I like my music to sound good, mp3s are fine on PC speakers but when I'm on the move I like to listen to my albums as best as I can as I don't always have the time to listen to them on a good stereo at home. I am firmly on the side of quality so I use good headphones and a lossless format. That's my point.

yeah - but the OP asked (and i paraphrase) 'in the context of mp3 players would you rather have less tunes at a high bitrate or more tunes at a lower rate'...so to say 'i listen to a discman' isn't particuarly adding to the discussion, as a discman tends to hold one disc at a time, and thus the issue of 'quantity' is moot - there are as many tracks as the CD manufacturer put on it (if it's a purchased album) or that you could fit on (if it's a compilation)

The point you make about preferring to listen to a discman and thus a completely lossless format isn't invalid or anthing like that, but in the context of the thread, it might be veering towards the area marked 'irrelevant'.

for me own sins...192 vbr for me on the iriver 140...but to be honest, on the cruddy headphones i have, and taking into account the background noise there always is, i might as well have 'em at 128 and cram even more on...

loyatemu

I only ever listen on headphones and nearly always on the Dart
so I use WMA 64k - its about equivalent of 128k MP3, saves space, sounds fine.

On decent speakers I'm sure it would sound crap, but even at 320k some stuff sounds crap on a good system. Only consistently reliable format is wav (I haven't really played with FLAC)

John

grumpytrousers wrote:

The point you make about preferring to listen to a discman and thus a completely lossless format isn't invalid or anthing like that, but in the context of the thread, it might be veering towards the area marked 'irrelevant'.

My discman plays mp3s though but I'd rather listen to one album on a disc than 14 albums on a disc. Still relevant.

the_syco

John wrote:

I am firmly on the side of quality so I use good headphones and a lossless format. That's my point.

What loseless format do you use, btw, and how big is your average 5 minute song?

=-=

I never use the headphones I get with the MP3 Cd Player/MP4 players. Got a nice Sony headset, and using it for the past while.

True, if you use the basic headphones, 128 will be grand, as you won't notice any difference, but if you get good headphones, you'll notice the difference.

Put it this way: buy a set of speakers for €3, and play the sound from your PC. Now play them on your speaker system. Notice a difference?

Makaveli

He listens to retail cds from what I can tell he doesn't rip using a lossless format.

FLAC all the way for lossless though.

Anyway John I see your point but really the thread is about what quality you rip at, you were the only one who took it in a different direction.

I have a decent harman/kardon 2.1 system on my pc and use Sennheiser PX200s with my H340 so I do benefit from the better quality rips and I can notice for the most part when the rip is less than 192KBps. Considering mp3 is a fairly poor codec anyway why further degrade the sound with low quality rips.

John

Makaveli wrote:

Anyway John I see your point but really the thread is about what quality you rip at, you were the only one who took it in a different direction.

Yeah and I'm sorry for acting jerky earlier. Been grumpy all week as I'm sick as a very sick thing. Apologies for the thread de-rail. *exits to the left*

Giblet

Most MP3 players have crappy filters and horrible EQs so you'd probably be better off ripping to 128

cornbb

My Sony MP3 walkman has excellent converters, thank you very much, and my filters/EQ and all that malarkey are always set to flat or off

stovelid

320 if you intend to play it out of speakers or whatever but for just listening to on IPod, esp with the bud phones, 192 is fine IMO