What's wrong with 128 Kbps??

[rodrigorajao]

I own a 5G 80GB iPod, and my music collection has been growing fast (both ripped CDs and legal downloads). I filled up my iPod sooner than I expected. I'm not ready to move up to the 160GB classic, as mine is only a year old.

So I resorted to deleting albums I don't listen to very often, but even that has a limit. My collection just keeps growing.

So, yesterday I adopted a controversial solution to free up room to more music in my iPod. I started downsampling everything to 128 kbps MP3. You see, I have a habit of ripping CDs at 192 kbps and most downloads come at 320 kbps. But at those high bitrates, my iPod got full with a little over 9800 songs. Apple claims 20,000 with 128 AAC (smaller filesize than MP3), so I should get at least CLOSE to that many songs in the iPod.

The results are coming in. The downsampling process is a time-consuming task and I'm far from done, but I've already managed to free up over 2GB AND add more songs (my Running Wild CD collection).

From now on, both iTunes and Winamp are configured to rip at 128Kbps and I'll downsample all downloads to 128 as well. That should buy me some time before I need a new bigger iPod.

Finally, my question: what are the drawbacks of 128 Kbps? I listen to music on the iPod 98% of the time, the other 2% being on my PC with a decent 2.1 speaker setup. What bitrate do you guys use/prefer??

I suffered from the audiophile paranoia a few years back, but reality bit me in the ###, and I'm a lot more realistic about my true music needs. I figured that as long as I don't use high-end prosumer audio gear, 128 will be just fine. Afterall, in all honesty, the iPod is a very basic music player with limited dynamic range and below-average earbuds. I'm listening right now to Angra (Temple of Shadows) and can tell no difference between its original 320 kbps and the new 128 kbps version.

Happy 2008.

[__redruM]

There's an audible difference between about 192 and 128, with 160 on the boarder line. Listen to a couple songs before and after the down conversion, and see what you think. If I were you, I'd down-convert only the stuff I don't listen to very often. Also archive the higher-bit versions somewhere, in case you change your mind.

Of course, I bought the 160gb classic in September, so this isn't a problem. But when it was, I just synced the stuff I wanted, and left the medium bit-rate stuff I didn't listen to on the PC only. Down converting wasn't even considered.

[a7dk]

If I were you I'd try an ABX blind-listening test first. It's possible (even likely) that you can't discern the difference between bitrates above 128 anyway. Go to Foobar2000 and download the software. I was going through a similar situation when I did this and learned that I can't tell the difference between 128 & 192 anyway, using Ety ER-6i earphones, which aren't high-end, but are a far cry better than apple buds. So now I rip at 128 and don't worry about it.

[vocrobot]

I rip everything at 128kbps to get the optimised battery life mainly. I suppose I have just got used to how it sounds but I am no audiophile and just to have my music with me all the time I don't need to have amazing sound quality.

I tried something last week though which surprised me. I ripped a couple of songs that I already have on my player in 128kbps in Apple Lossless format. Listened to both songs at 128 and then in the lossless format and I really couldn't hear any difference.

[hexonxonx]

If you can't tell the difference between 128 and 192 or even 256, just rip using 128. That's what I have done with all of my CDs. 128 is fine for me and for non iTunes Plus songs, you get 128 there as well. You'll get much better battery life from the iPod and you can fit allot more songs on the iPod.

[Dr.Gonzo]

I think anything below 128 is where you'll see trouble. 128 is a minimum for me. I have a mixture of 128 and 256 on my iPod, the 256 being iTunes plus and CDs that I've burned at the 256k AAC setting in Preferences. So anything I burn in the future will be at that rate.

[Minger]

For me, the main thing that sells me on 192 vs 128 is the drums and cymbals - they tend to sound very week, especially the cymbals at the top end (very tinny...I think). It just sounded weird after using better headphones.

[studogvetmed]

There is nothing wrong with 128 as long as your ears and equipment aren't bothered by it.

Some people are.

Keep a high quality rip/lossless file as a backup somewhere to do downsampling should your ears or equipment ever change.

The only problem I have is with going lossy->lossy. This is not a good practice as it is not the most efficient way to get there, even if you are going high to low. Of course never recode low to high in lossy it's a waste of time and energy as you never get anything back, though the file size WILL grow, but will not have gained any quality, only space on your hardrive.

[rainynight65]

I am pretty much with the OP here. The iPod is not a high-end hi-fi solution, it is a portable music player. At the end of the day, if you can live with the quality that 128 gives you on the iPod, go for it. But I agree with studo, I wouldn't recode files that are already compressed. Rather re-rip the original CDs. That might even be faster, although you'll have to play DJ for a while.

[stevehulse]

I think to some extent it depends on how/where you listen to your iPod. If you use the supplied earbuds or similar cheapo ones, on the bus - or play your iPod through an FM transmitter in your car then 128 is fine. If you use decent sound-isolating earphones or headphones, or connect via a decent amp, I think most people would notice some difference, even if only in 'tinny' cymbals as mentioned above.

[sebulr]

I did a blind test last weekend although it was a brief one, and discovered that I couldn't tell the difference between 128 Kbit mp3 192Kbit mp3 and 192 Kbit WMA using Shure e2c headphones with a track I am very familar with. It turned out I got it right 33% of the time or to put it into words I was guessing.

Mind you I was using my inbuilt sound on my laptop which isn't the best quality, probably upto ipod standards though. I used Lame 3.9 encoded mp3 and COWON Jet audio with all sound options set to flat. The only reason I sued that was because it has a minimised mode where I can't see the encoding options if you flick it to the left of the screen while listening.


BUT, you might lose a bit of qulity when downgrading a sound file. So it may not be as good as true 128Kbit mp3. I wouldn't have thought it would be a significant difference though, afterall it is a digital file.

[FredWasTaken]

Originally Posted by rainynight65

I am pretty much with the OP here. The iPod is not a high-end hi-fi solution, it is a portable music player. At the end of the day, if you can live with the quality that 128 gives you on the iPod, go for it. But I agree with studo, I wouldn't recode files that are already compressed. Rather re-rip the original CDs.

To be honest, if you can stand to listen to 128kbps mp3s then you're probably not going to notice any difference between those made from cd and those from 192kbps or whatever.

[Germansuplex]

I can tell a slight difference between 192 and 128 when not using blind testing, but I have not been able to tell the difference with blind testing. So I rip my music at 128kbps. It sounds just fine for me on most sub-$150 headphones and sounds fine on speakers. The size is a great compromise for me.

As others have said, just do some testing yourself and rip your music so that YOU are happy with it. You don't need to upstage anyone. If you're really iffy, do what others have said and rip to lossless for a backup copy and then rip to a lower bitrate for your actual iTunes library.

The only way I would try to re-rip most of my collection to a higher bitrate is if iTunes let you encode music while adding it to the iPod. I would gladly use 320kbps mp3 if iTunes let me add it to the iPod as 128kbps. Other programs let you do it, but I like iTunes. So far, none of it's worth the hastle for me, especially when I hardly notice that much of a difference with my setups (and by setup, I mean my iHome clock and $15 desktop speakers )

[dirtpeach]

Originally Posted by rodrigorajao

From now on, both iTunes and Winamp are configured to rip at 128Kbps and I'll downsample all downloads to 128 as well. That should buy me some time before I need a new bigger iPod.

ripping to 128kbps is perfectly fine for most people. downsampling or transcoding from a high bitrate mp3 to 128kbps is a different matter. more information here

[jonnyb098]

Depending on the music that you listen to, 128kbps may sound good. However, tracks with lots of bass and drum/cymbal crashes will have noticeable sound artifacts. It all comes down to what kind of speakers or headphones you listen with. The stock ipod headphones and smaller speaker systems will play 128k files good while using a pair of bose/v-moda vibes/shure etc.... will make 128 k files sound very muddy. I like good sound, but not quite an audiophile so take it as you wish. Good Luck!