Opinions on Bitrates

[sinster]

I spent a looooong time this weekend finally ripping my CD's to mp3 to load up my ipod. I managed a measly 2GB over one evening, but as I was doing this, I realised that I had not selected the bitrate and it was on the preset 128.

Now before I continue with the rest of my CD collection, I wanted to get all the esteemed Ipodlounge Guru feedback on the best bitrate that balances quality as well as space. A little background on my Cd collection:- I have abt 250cd's (pathetic i know)..and I got abt 2GB from 50. Simple averaging tells me that at 128, i shld be able to load on my entire collection and have abt 3-4GB to spare. (I have a 15GB ipod-christened iSinster)

Also, When I hooked up iSinster to my home steroe using a really cheap rca cable, it sounded...well..not outstanding. Liveable by my non audiophile standards, but defintely not excellent. Furthermore, when I hooked it up through the headphone hack, the sound got even softer and less intricate. (cldnt come up woth a better word) So I got wondering on the bitrate, and whether I should "upgrade" to a 192KBS. Doing some really quick math, i figured I will not be able to load my entire collection on iSinster if I do, but thats ok. I can "manage" my music library, and rather get better sound.

So the question is will moving upto 192 make a discernible difference, or should I really go one step further to..?? (not even sure what the next level is)? What rates are you guys using and how do you use your ipod?

Thanks as always for the fantastic help/perspective.

[BigBohn]

I know this belongs in Digital Formats, but I ponder the same thing as you, sinster. I encoded all my cds into 192 kbps CBR mp3. I got a 30gb and I have still about 14 gb of space left. With all this space, I have wondered should I have encoded it at 256 or 320 (from my research, I hear that LAME encoding at 256 is better than 320, go figure).

Moral of the story is, I guess be happy with what you got, for at a certain point (which I think is 192 kbps CBR), it is pointless to be trying to get better sound quality because thats how compression is. If you wanted exact CD quality stuff to carry around, that's what CD cases are for. The file size of a .wav going from 55 mb to 4 mb is already incredible; something has to give in between from ripping to playing. Just be happy with what you got, but have the best you can get.

[sinster]

So are you saying that 192 is "worth" the space compared to 128? I also used Lame, and am seriously contemplating re-ripping the last 50cds...rather than realising this after i rip another 50-100 at 128!!!


The perils of being a techno-junkie hooked on the iPod! The solution to all of this is ofcourse a 250GB iPod at half the size of what we have today. THen we cld just use wav, and throw away all my cd cases.

[BigBohn]

If I had a choice between encoding at 128 or 192, I'd pick 192 for the sheer fact that I can hear the difference. If you can, I don't know. In most cases, like lets say your in the car playing the iPod and someone else is with you, they will most likely not care if its 128 or 192. You might, but for someone else its not that big of a deal.

If you haven't check out 320 or 256. I know people say that its overkill or stupid for encoding that high, but I can hear a difference in the low end department with higher bitrates. Maybe its in my head, maybe its not. You must differentiate what is real to you or not. Oh man, maybe I shouldn't have watched that Matrix movie.

[MidPack]

...you have to decide for yourself. If you have more space than music, I'd err on the high side. If you have more music than space, you have a decision to make. Mine are all at alt-preset-std which is sometimes refered to as ~192 VBR. I've heard of people who are satisfied with 128 CBR and I've heard of people who insist on 320! On the latter, I would question 320 unless you're going to listen to your iPod at home through a decent stereo. If you listen in your car (noisy environment) or walkaround (with mediocre buds/phones), then you could probably be happy with a lower kbps rate.

But don't let anyone tell you what to do, it's your ears-music-iPod capacity...

[motox22a]

I've found that there is a noticeable difference between
128 and 160Kbps...The higher you go the less it will affect the quality...Anything above 192Kbps is pretty much not discernable quality-wise to most people's ears. If you can't fit the collection at 192Kbps why not try 160Kbps...It's a nice compromise that gives noticeable quality improvement from 128K...
I've personally never cared for VBR but have nothing really against using it either.
Regarding encoders...You'll see alot of people recommending EAC/LAME combination. EAC is indeed a good ripper (A little on the slow side) but gives excellent results...I personally do not like LAME...I've compared the results of encoding the same file using LAME/Xing/Fraunhofer...LAME always comes out the worst at the same bitrate compared to Xing and Fraunhofer...However it's FREE and that's why people ususally recommend it...

[clintb]

Use Dibrom's compile of LAME 3.90.3 from Hydrogen Audio and use the command line of "--alt-preset standard".

Very high quality VBR, average bit rates of around 200 or so.

List of reccomended LAME compiles.

[MidPack]

motox22a (or anyone),

What is the disadvantage of VBR? I figured 192 VBR (alt-preset std) would be indistinguishable from 192 CBR, using less HD space, and that's why I ripped everything there. Not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand why anyone would ever use CBR unless you had way more space than music (320 CBR). I suspect this is a pretty esoteric discussion isn't it (I'll learn)...

[clintb]

Originally posted by MidPack
motox22a (or anyone),

What is the disadvantage of VBR? I figured 192 VBR (alt-preset std) would be indistinguishable from 192 CBR, using less HD space, and that's why I ripped everything there. Not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand why anyone would ever use CBR unless you had way more space than music (320 CBR). I suspect this is a pretty esoteric discussion isn't it (I'll learn)...

The very nature of VBR being "Variable" allows the encoder to make decisions based on the music and how many bits it needs to encode and get a good result. With CBR, you're limiting the encoder to an upper level, like 192Kbps, but with VBR you're not setting arbitrary limits. Basically, do you as a human know what bitrate the encoder will need without going through a bit of hassle? No, so you let the encoder handle it with VBR.

And --alt-preset standard is not a hard coded 192Kbps, it'll average around 200Kbps depending on the music. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Go over to hydrogenaudio.org and read up a bit. You'll learn alot over there and many myths will be cast aside.

[motox22a]

Like I said I've got nothing against VBR and I do understand the reasons and advantages for it...However...For MYSELF...I use my MP3 Files on various MP3 Players and devices besides the IPOD and have found that VBR sometimes has side effects on things like time counters and VBR was not initially supported universally on all players (Legacy players) so to have universal MP3s that I can use on any MP3 Player I found it was better to have CBRs rather than have to convert for a particular device...That's all...

[Kenny]

I think it really depends on the genre of music.

If Im listening to a slow song (ie., vandross, mcknight, etc...) I can definately hear the difference between 320kbps and 192kbps. Im assuming using high quality headphones (or earbuds) will allow you to hear the difference when it comes to classical music, R&B, etc...

But if you're listening to rock, alternative, dance, trance, etc... lower bitrates would probably be good enough.

[pingin]

sinister (or anyone else),
any reason why you haven't tried AAC?

[tntracy]

Right now, my personal preference are these settings for encoding in iTunes:

MP3: 192 Kbps, VBR, normal stereo, using iTunes' "highest" quality level for VBR

AAC: 160 Kbps.

I used to be quite happy with 160 Kbps VBR MP3s until I got some very good, detailed earphones which prompted me to re-encode to 192.

BTW, there are two iPodlounge FAQs on this subject - here and here - if any one is interested.

Tom

[pingin]

Originally posted by tntracy
Right now, my personal preference are these settings for encoding in iTunes:

MP3: 192 Kbps, VBR, normal stereo, using iTunes' "highest" quality level for VBR

AAC: 160 Kbps.

I used to be quite happy with 160 Kbps VBR MP3s until I got some very good, detailed earphones which prompted me to re-encode to 192.

BTW, there are two iPodlounge FAQs on this subject - here and here - if any one is interested.

Tom

What earphones are those?
When do you use AAC and when do you use MP3?
If you have good quality earphones, maybe it would be worth encoding AAC with QuictTime Pro to get the High Quality setting (it's set to low in iTunes).

[tntracy]

Originally posted by pingin
What earphones are those?

Etymotic ER-4Ps.

When do you use AAC and when do you use MP3?
If you have good quality earphones, maybe it would be worth encoding AAC with QuictTime Pro to get the High Quality setting (it's set to low in iTunes).

Hmmm. I didn't realize there was a difference between AAC encoding in iTunes and in QuickTime Pro. Can you elaborate?

Basically, I have been encoding only new CDs as I buy them (I buy a lot of CDs ) to 160 Kbps AAC - I am not going back and re-encoding CDs I already have in 192 Kbps VBR MP3s. But, the more I listen to 160 Kbps AAC, the less I think I like it compared to my 192 Kbps VBR MP3s. Granted, it may just be all in my mind (I need to do some blind listening tests), but the AAC files seem to not sound quite as "full" to me.

So, I am intrigued by your comment concerning encoding from QuickTime Pro. How does that work? Is there a plug-in or something for iTunes so that you are still ripping and encoding from within iTunes, or do you rip & encode it QuickTime Pro separately, then add the AAC files to your iTunes library?

Thanks.

Tom