Stavros

Im presuming technicly the higher the kb/sec it plays at, the better quality?

Is there really a noticable difference in music quality or whatever between a file thats say 90kb/sec and one thats 130kb/sec? Cause i cant tell the difference, but my speakers are wank

If you feel there is, what you feel is a good enough quality?

Ta

CraigN

yes defo is

i record all mine into 192kb

as i use my ipod in my car 192 i find very good quality

Jim Galbally

130 kb/sec = 130 kilobits per second, so each second of audio takes up 130kilobits of information (divide by 8 to get kilobytes)

if you know the bitrate and the length of the sond, you can work out the size of the file

unless its encoded with VBR (variable bitrate) where it varies the bitrate depending on how much it needs... unfortunately VBR fiiles are notorious for fucking up

Stavros

fair enough, whats that gotta do with owt jim?

it just got me thinking as i downloaded the same track twice, one the smaller file thats 96kb/sec and the other a bit bigger and plays at 128kb/sec and im fucked if i can tell the difference

Spiky

iTrader: (1)

presonally i cant tell the diff between 128 and 192,

i normally would get/rip anything low than 128

Jim Galbally

steve, you wont be able to tell the difference really unless you have v. good hearing. if you compare one ripped at 192 and one rippes at like 64 you can easily tell tho... sounds like the difference between listening to a CD and listening to the radio

SteveT

If I'm ripping my own CD's to MP3 then I use 192 Kb/s or 160 kb/s. Hard to tell apart.
But I can notice the difference between 128 and 192. Saying that, 128Kb/s is still ok for your average stereo, and will sound ok.

But bit rate is not the whole story, for example, if you find two versions of the same song on Kazza or whatever, and one is 128kb/s and the other is 192 kb/s , you can't assume that the 192 one will sound better. You don't know which algorithm which was used to compress them, or which quality setting/compression speed was used, or what quality the original source of the music was
Also WMA is supposed to be better than MP3 at the same bit rate.

steve

Phil

iTrader: (1)

I always use 192, as you can definitely tell the difference at 128 - high end looses a lot of information

Stavros

Phil- What do you mean by high end? high frequency notes? ie Trebble?

Well that dont bother me in the slightest really so thas ok.

Adrian

I have about 60gb all encoded VBR and have had no issues what so ever either as audio CD's or MP3 CD's.

Guess you just unlucky Jimbo.

Jamz

What a load of bollocks

AGAR-COSWORTH

I find using MP3 encoding 128kbps is good enough for me - even when using a high quality amp and speakers. Im not sure about wmv. formats as i don't use them much, but i've heard there better, ie: can encode sound in 56kbps format and still have cd quality - could be bullshit

Stavros

Anyone?

Phil

iTrader: (1)

Yes Steve on the treble. You would think it doesn't bother you being a bass monkey but the cymbals etc are still there, just they sound crap! (Wavy instead of sharp is the best description I can think of )

Everyone hears differently though I guess so it could just be me, but i'v never had a problem doing everything in 192, 160 is usually perfectly adequate but where size isnt an issue I do 192.

Also if you use Windows Media Player to do it you need to choose mp3 in the settings instead of wmf or whatever it is that it uses.