What bitrate do you rip at?
- Thread starter mrapoc
- Start date
Right, for best quality/size you'll want to use VBR mp3, level 8 is recommended, hits 320kbps during heavy parts of the song and also goes down low (for example 32kbps during silence!), at level 8, it would in most cases be impossible for you to tell the difference between that and 320kbps while having the filesize of around a 192kbps mp3.
If you wanted to venture into the world of AAC then a 128kbps AAC file should be indistinguishable from a 192kbps mp3 file.
Someone said earlier that CD quality is 128kbps, this is completely false as some other people mentioned.. CD uses wave format (1411kbps, 44khz, 16-bit). This is uncompressed, if you rip a CD in its original .wav, then convert this to different mp3 levels (say 320kbps, 192kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps) you'll hear that the wav is at least superior to 128kbps and 96kbps, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 192kbps and no one except super man would be able to tell the difference between 320kbps and the wav as we just can't hear the frequencies that have been cut off at that level. If you look at both the wav and 320kbps mp3 in sound editing software and look at the frequencies you'll see a difference though
If you can't be bothered to read all that, here's a shortened version:
mrapoc:
Recommended: Use VBR mp3 at level 8 (you might have to rip it as wav first, then convert with LameXP 1.01).
If you still use a 200MB HDD from years ago: 128kbps AAC
doomie: You're wrong.
If you wanted to venture into the world of AAC then a 128kbps AAC file should be indistinguishable from a 192kbps mp3 file.
Someone said earlier that CD quality is 128kbps, this is completely false as some other people mentioned.. CD uses wave format (1411kbps, 44khz, 16-bit). This is uncompressed, if you rip a CD in its original .wav, then convert this to different mp3 levels (say 320kbps, 192kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps) you'll hear that the wav is at least superior to 128kbps and 96kbps, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 192kbps and no one except super man would be able to tell the difference between 320kbps and the wav as we just can't hear the frequencies that have been cut off at that level. If you look at both the wav and 320kbps mp3 in sound editing software and look at the frequencies you'll see a difference though
If you can't be bothered to read all that, here's a shortened version:
mrapoc:
Recommended: Use VBR mp3 at level 8 (you might have to rip it as wav first, then convert with LameXP 1.01).
If you still use a 200MB HDD from years ago: 128kbps AAC
doomie: You're wrong.
name='PP Mguire' said:
First of all, it's impossible to tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format, so what you have said is already flawed. Second, you can't encode an mp3 higher than 320kbps.. so I don't know how you can compare a 1000kbps lossless wma to an equivalent mp3. You're wasting heaps of space.
name='NickS' said:
You must have wrong info
I guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a VBR 8 mp3 and a 320kbps mp3, while the VBR 8 one would take up less space. Don't make stupid claims without having tested these things yourself.
Infact, here, listen yourself
320kbps mp3 - http://upload.overclock3d.net/get.php?id=2017
VBR 8 mp3 - http://upload.overclock3d.net/get.php?id=2018
Hear a difference and you get a "not human" award
(Just FYI both these clips were sourced from an uncompressed 16-bit wav)
First of all buahahaha at this. If you couldnt tell the difference then there wouldnt be anything higher than 320k dude. Seriously, thats like saying oh well you cant tell the difference between a 15band and 32band EQ so lets just use a 15band instead. Secondly, you can use WMP to rip anything from a CD to lossless. Just becasue you cant tell the difference dosent mean others cant. Its called, years of training your ear. I work with sound professionaly, i think id know. Backed by, my dad with about 38 years of experience in professional audio, and audio and music in general
I also work with sound professionally, I'm a sound and mastering engineer.
It is impossible to tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a wav, waste however much space you want but you're spouting bull
. NO ONE can do it.
There isn't, mp3 compression goes to 320kbps. Why? Impossible for a human ear to detect frequencies above the frequencies this cuts out. Heaps can't tell a difference above 128kbps, most can't tell above 192kbps, not even an audiophile will be able to tell above 320kbps. No one. Infact,
It is impossible to tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a wav, waste however much space you want but you're spouting bull
There isn't, mp3 compression goes to 320kbps. Why? Impossible for a human ear to detect frequencies above the frequencies this cuts out. Heaps can't tell a difference above 128kbps, most can't tell above 192kbps, not even an audiophile will be able to tell above 320kbps. No one. Infact,
First, MP3 compression is lossy in that it discards data which cannot be regained. Thus, when you convert an MP3 (already "damaged"), the WAV will sound exactly the same, with no increased clarity or details.
As for the difference, there definitely is one. However compression algorithms have become so much more advanced nowadays that many of the audible differences are captured more faithfully (like comparing the muddy/watery sounding 128 encodes from 10 years ago, to surprisingly crisp 128 encodes of today). The real differences lie in the precision factor of the MP3 sampling as well as the frequency response. So, there are differences, but to about 99.999999999% of the population, nobody can tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and WAV from a cd. It is a known fact that the human ear cannot perceive easily phase differences above a certain frequency, i.e around 256kbps and definitely not 320kbps. If you can, then the bionic man award goes out to you...and a cookie
As for the difference, there definitely is one. However compression algorithms have become so much more advanced nowadays that many of the audible differences are captured more faithfully (like comparing the muddy/watery sounding 128 encodes from 10 years ago, to surprisingly crisp 128 encodes of today). The real differences lie in the precision factor of the MP3 sampling as well as the frequency response. So, there are differences, but to about 99.999999999% of the population, nobody can tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and WAV from a cd. It is a known fact that the human ear cannot perceive easily phase differences above a certain frequency, i.e around 256kbps and definitely not 320kbps. If you can, then the bionic man award goes out to you...and a cookie
name='PV5150' said:First, MP3 compression is lossy in that it discards data which cannot be regained. Thus, when you convert an MP3 (already "damaged"), the WAV will sound exactly the same, with no increased clarity or details.
As for the difference, there definitely is one. However compression algorithms have become so much more advanced nowadays that many of the audible differences are captured more faithfully (like comparing the muddy/watery sounding 128 encodes from 10 years ago, to surprisingly crisp 128 encodes of today). The real differences lie in the precision factor of the MP3 sampling as well as the frequency response. So, there are differences, but to about 99.999999999% of the population, nobody can tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and WAV from a cd. It is a known fact that the human ear cannot perceive easily phase differences above a certain frequency, i.e around 256kbps and definitely not 320kbps. If you can, then the bionic man award goes out to you...and a cookie
While that being said, it really IS impossible to hear the difference from 192 to 320 by any. If they claim they can hear a difference, they're lying.
And VBR at the highest levelis better than 320kbps because it is more optimized. That's like if you have a 5MB domain to use webpages on, you don't fill it up with un-optimized .PNG's, do you? Optimising the MP3 (like the .PNG's, just take this as an example) will remove certain "colours" which isn't used by an exact file.
Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless WMA seriously needs to STFU and GTFO my internets.
FarFarAway
New member
The only way you don't get loss is with listening from pure analogue sound through an analogue (and thus very expensive) valve amp through VERY expensive speakers in a room sealed and setup to give the perfect sound.
Basically if you're a real audiophile you won't use a PC to store and listen to your music.
Now I'm not saying I am, but I do know a couple of people who have spent an equal amount on their sound stuff to what most people would on a house
Basically if you're a real audiophile you won't use a PC to store and listen to your music.
Now I'm not saying I am, but I do know a couple of people who have spent an equal amount on their sound stuff to what most people would on a house
name='Kempez' said:
Valve amps don't faithfully reproduce sound, the introduce soft distortion, therefore the music isn't heard as it was intended. People might like the "warmth" but you can't call it faithful. It is also interesting the audiophiles will never submit to double blind testing.
@everyone who claims they can, you know that you can't tell the difference between a 320Kbps mp3, a CD, and analogue, admit it and stop coming up with BS reasons which aren't scientific.
Trippledence
New member
If you want to do proper secure rips i would advise setting up EAC useing this guide: http://jiggafellz.isa-geek.net/eac/
Personaly I use OGG Vorbis v7, LAME Mp4 V0, or if you want the BEST quality FLAC is the best way to go in terms of lossy codecs, its more efficent than wav and does offer some compression.
Transcodeing of any kind, Which is going from one lossy [compressed codec such as mp3/wma/ogg] to another is a bad idear, the sounds allready been ripped apart quite alot by the the compressers and it just starts to degrade massively second time round. As someone I am sure has said before you can make something higer bitrate. But there are plugins and apps that claim to add the missing bits of sound back into the audio. Much like what can be done with jpgs. But thats a bit of a futile act at the endof the day.
Dav0s: Vorbis doesnt lack compatability, everything else does
Personaly I use OGG Vorbis v7, LAME Mp4 V0, or if you want the BEST quality FLAC is the best way to go in terms of lossy codecs, its more efficent than wav and does offer some compression.
Transcodeing of any kind, Which is going from one lossy [compressed codec such as mp3/wma/ogg] to another is a bad idear, the sounds allready been ripped apart quite alot by the the compressers and it just starts to degrade massively second time round. As someone I am sure has said before you can make something higer bitrate. But there are plugins and apps that claim to add the missing bits of sound back into the audio. Much like what can be done with jpgs. But thats a bit of a futile act at the endof the day.
Dav0s: Vorbis doesnt lack compatability, everything else does
