mp3 Bitrates

Mossy Monk

i made a copy of a cd (it's my cd) for the car. i did it with a bitrate of 128. the sound is really poor. sort of muffled which bitrate is best for cd quality?

tman

anything over 192 is a waste of space...
you do need to make sure that you've changed the quality settings as well (not many programs let you do it tho)
it's prolly on normal quality, or high speed now. you need to ramp it up to highest quality (easy cd-da extractor let's you change these setting easily enough)

Kali

I usually encode at 160-256kbps VBR, if your mp3cd player or whatever support that then its your best bet for quality and compression...

I wouldn't agree with the "anything over 192" is a waste of space statement anyway, I've converted a few mp3 albums (mostly extremely hard to get stuff) onto CD over the past few years, and while its pretty easy to distinguish between 128 and 160 or 192, between 192 and 256 you can definitely notice the difference in quality in both the lower and upper frequencies... I can't notice the difference between 256 and 320, though thats probably down to my **** pair of headphones atm

^CwAzY^

I think 128kbps is perfect quality for ripping mp3s. Maybe you did something wrong while ripping them, was error correction turned off?

Stark

On my ears/equipment, good quality (as in I can't tell the difference):

I encode all my mp3s using LAME 3.93 (no other encoder will do)

MP3 160kbps CBR (constant bitrate)
MP3 128kbps ABR (variable bitrate, averaging out at 128kbps)
WMA8 128kbps
OGG Vorbis quality 0 (around 64kpbs)

Haven't tried out WMA9 yet, but I've heard there's not that much of an improvement over WMA8.
MS say 64kbps WMA8 is cd quality, but this sounds absolutely awful for me, even on a pair of £-shop headphones, I can really hear the difference (it's like listening to the music in an enchanted forest or something).
Note how good ogg vorbis is

Stark

I can't notice the difference between 256 and 320, though thats probably down to my **** pair of headphones atm

That's because there is no difference. Scientific studies have shown that given a sample of population with the best listening ability and top quality equipment, 256kbps CBR mp3 is equivalent to cd quality. (Though with modern mp3 encoders and variable bitrate techniques, that's probably come down a bit).

So don't let anyone tell you only 320kbps will do for them
If they're that fussy they should be using lossless encoders like FLAC or Monkey's audio.

Kali

That's because there is no difference. Scientific studies have shown that given a sample of population with the best listening ability and top quality equipment, 256kbps CBR mp3 is equivalent to cd quality.

That'll save me trying to notice a difference so

Makaveli

I rip them at 192kbps.
Any bigger and it just takes up too much space on the computer.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

happydude13

hey.

.ogg is brilliant but it won't work with any music players that use hardware to decode the mp3s (all of them at present as far as i know). So you really should choose the medium based on when and where you will be using it.

Greenbean

When mp3's first caught on they were sensationally better than anything else you could get for that filesize, 128 was considered very good. Comparitively it is; its able to cover a very good range of frequencies, and for most people its "very good quality". As time has gone on, net-heads have been training their ears, getting better sound systems/headphones, and comparing the quality to the larger bitrates and noticing the differences. We we now consider 128 ****. But, for the optimal quality-to-filesize ratio 128 can't be beat when encoded with a decent encoder. Thats why it was choosen in the first place after all, its just enough bitrate to cover the important frequencies audible to the average human ear.

I agree, 192kbps is an improvement over 128, but I'm not about to throw out any 128 mp3's I have, they are still decent quality.

It should be accepted that mp3's are a lossy format, they are almost cd quality (in comparison to realaudio/radio/fm-radio, they really are) and unless they sample at the same rate as cd's and switch off encoding there will always be a fault with them. Heck even CD's aren't considered that great to a well trained musical ear.

The most important thing I think you can do when encoding mp3's is to use a proper encoder using the slowest/best encoding, and use one thats ideal for the bitrate you are encoding at. IIRC lamenc is ideal for 192kbps, bladeenc for bitrates higher, and neither are optimal for 128 - for that I think fraunhofer is recommended. Don't touch xing, it might be quick, but thats because it produces seriously poor mp3's. Basically lamenc and bladeenc made their names by optimising their output for higher bitrate mp3's... which isn't impressive really. Its been 2 years since I did any work on mp3 encoders so this info might be out of date - but don't diss those 128kbps mp3's - they changed the internet we all live in!

thegills

If you are ripping a CD copy just for your car then use the highest bitrate possible. Why not, sure it will only take more time. Are CD's not over 1000kbs quailty. For MP3 CD's obviously file size counts so 192kbs would be adequate. There must something wrong with your setup though. Sometimes you need to 'normalise' the mp3 volumes. I made a car CD from diferent MP3's coded at different bit rates and from song to song the volume went from good to bad.

DiscoStu

it really depends on your setup. personally out of my computer speakers there is virtually no difference between 128 and 192 but put on headphones and its a different story.

Mossy Monk

thank you all for your advice. i'll try doing another cd tonight and see how it goes

Makaveli

Originally posted by thegills
Are CD's not over 1000kbs quailty

1144kbps iirc.

I used not notice the difference between 128kbps and 192 when I was using my old computer (this one), the speakers on it are crap as is the sound card, but when I started listening to them on my newer computer you can really notice the difference because of the superior speakers and sound card.
Basically if you have a crappy set up you wont notice a huge difference imo.
I'm back using this computer because the other one had the phone line removed and this one sounds crap. I hate it.

Stark

Heck even CD's aren't considered that great to a well trained musical ear.

AFAIK the cd format is technically perfect, as in the 44khz sampling rate captures all frequencies up to 22khz(which is the upper threshold for anyone). Any perceived loss in quality is usually due to the mastering process in actually recording the album, or transferring it to cd.

http://www.r3mix.net (sadly no longer being updated) has some good info on this. (the only change I would make to the website is that lame --alt-preset standard should now be used instead of the outdated lame --r3mix)