Do higher bitrates pay off?
- butters
- Classic Games Lover
- Posts: 5088
- https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:50 pm
- Location: Lubbock, Texas, United States, Sol 3, Milky Way Galaxy
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Do higher bitrates pay off?
Too much trouble to copy and paste the 4 page article. Basically the article takes 4 self-proclaimed audiophiles and has them listen to 3 versions of the same songs. The results are surprising.
Article
Article
-
- DCEmu Webmaster
- Posts: 16373
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 6:00 pm
- Location: New Orleans, LA
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
- Contact:
I can definitely tell when something is encoded at 128kbps. 160kbps is probably acceptable under most circumstances, but I prefer 192kbps just to keep things safe. When it comes to bands that are really important to me, I choose lossless not necessarily because of its higher quality, but also because of its archival nature.
It's thinking...
-
- Thomas
- Posts: 2999
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Well said. 192kbps is the lowest I will go, but usually I stick with VBR (V2 w/ lame 3.97). The only lossless stuff I grab is stuff I have on vinyl, just to archieve it incase something happens to the vinyl.|darc| wrote:I can definitely tell when something is encoded at 128kbps. 160kbps is probably acceptable under most circumstances, but I prefer 192kbps just to keep things safe. When it comes to bands that are really important to me, I choose lossless not necessarily because of its higher quality, but also because of its archival nature.
-
- DC Developer
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 9:02 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
It always depends on the source material, your speaker equipment, and your ears (how well your ears pick up high-frequency harmonics will make a big difference). Occasionally, something will sound fine at 96kbps, and 128kbps is often fine. However, there's some source material that's really hard to compress, and would require 192kbps to get good quality.
Which is why I usually use VBR. And usually either Ogg Vorbis or AAC instead of MP3.
Which is why I usually use VBR. And usually either Ogg Vorbis or AAC instead of MP3.
- butters
- Classic Games Lover
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:50 pm
- Location: Lubbock, Texas, United States, Sol 3, Milky Way Galaxy
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Unfortunately most portable audio devices don't playback Ogg or AAC...BlackAura wrote:It always depends on the source material, your speaker equipment, and your ears (how well your ears pick up high-frequency harmonics will make a big difference). Occasionally, something will sound fine at 96kbps, and 128kbps is often fine. However, there's some source material that's really hard to compress, and would require 192kbps to get good quality.
Which is why I usually use VBR. And usually either Ogg Vorbis or AAC instead of MP3.
-
- Thomas
- Posts: 2999
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Most of the newer models of mp3 players are able to play all sorts of formats these days with the stock firmware. And a lot of 3rd party firmware can be installed on different players to allow them to be played.BlackAura wrote:All of mine play at least one of them, usually Ogg Vorbis.butters wrote:Unfortunately most portable audio devices don't playback Ogg or AAC...
- SadisticSaviorX
- DCEmu Nutter
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:04 am
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
I do just about the same but 192kbps VBR is what I use for just about everything I encode. I haven't dabbled in lossless because I don't notice a quality difference after 192k.|darc| wrote:I can definitely tell when something is encoded at 128kbps. 160kbps is probably acceptable under most circumstances, but I prefer 192kbps just to keep things safe. When it comes to bands that are really important to me, I choose lossless not necessarily because of its higher quality, but also because of its archival nature.
- melancholy
- DCEmu's Ace Attorney
- Posts: 10969
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:34 am
- Location: Indiana
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- melancholy
- DCEmu's Ace Attorney
- Posts: 10969
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:34 am
- Location: Indiana
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
There are a lot of things I could do better. But with a music collection as large as mine, it would take days to try to change it all and I'm just not willing to do that at this point.|darc| wrote:You're much better off doing something like 96k VBR mono. Smaller and better quality, less annoying than low quality stereo.melancholy wrote:I just 128k CRB everything and say screw it. I'm all about space over quality.
-
- Somewhat Dumb Knight
- Posts: 3653
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- not just souLLy now
- DCEmu Respected
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:53 pm
- Location: UK
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
I reencoded a lot of my collection a year ago from mainly 128kb MP3s and WMAs to a minimum of 192kbps lame encoded VBR MP3s, I was shocked at just how much better they sounded- sounds that I thought were part of some songs turned out to be just glitches and I also heard background noises I'd never heard before (since I only listen to music through my PC or MP3 player, never from an original CD). Deftones - White Pony and A Perfect Circle - Mer de Noms were the best examples of albums that totally changed for me.
I'm not a semi-bitrate nazi and I'm irritated if I have something in a low bitrate or a crappy file format and can't get a better version.
I'm not a semi-bitrate nazi and I'm irritated if I have something in a low bitrate or a crappy file format and can't get a better version.
- Zealous zerotype
- zerotype
- Posts: 3701
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:11 pm
- Location: Nashville,TN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
I just do V2 for most stuff. I fail to see the quality diffrence between v2 and v0 and see CBR as a waste of space.
SCO=SCUM=M$=SCO it keeps repeating
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
- Christuserloeser
- Moderator
- Posts: 5948
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:16 am
- Location: DCEvolution.net
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- Zealous zerotype
- zerotype
- Posts: 3701
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:11 pm
- Location: Nashville,TN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Could you tell a diffrence or did you just think you could tell a diffrence. Do an ABX test and prove it to your self to see.
SCO=SCUM=M$=SCO it keeps repeating
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
- Quzar
- Dream Coder
- Posts: 7497
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:14 am
- Location: Miami, FL
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
- Contact:
That's exactly how I felt when I moved from 192kbps vbr mp3/320cbr to lossless. You're still missing so much that you just don't know is there.not just souLLy now wrote:I reencoded a lot of my collection a year ago from mainly 128kb MP3s and WMAs to a minimum of 192kbps lame encoded VBR MP3s, I was shocked at just how much better they sounded- sounds that I thought were part of some songs turned out to be just glitches and I also heard background noises I'd never heard before (since I only listen to music through my PC or MP3 player, never from an original CD).
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
- Christuserloeser
- Moderator
- Posts: 5948
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:16 am
- Location: DCEvolution.net
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
I could easily tell the difference.Zealous zerotype wrote:Could you tell a diffrence or did you just think you could tell a diffrence.
Let me put it this way: In the original 16bit WAVs there were like 100 Trent Reznors chanting. In the MP3 there were like maybe 50, which is quite a big difference.
That said, MP3 is still what I use. It's just that I am aware that it can't really compete with a lossless format.
Insane homebrew collector.