Computer Forums

Member Login

Remember Me? Sign Up! | Forgot Password
 
Slogan
 
Closed Thread
Old 05-16-2006, 10:24 PM   #1 (permalink)
 
Banned

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 640

Green Radience

Default MP3 Encoding

So I'm getting a MP3 player and was wondering about the options of different encodings. I don't know much at all about Audio Encoding so I had some questions. I've already tried Googling it and didn't find any helpful website, but if you know of any please feel free to post. So I understand that 192kbps means that every second has 192kb of information on it. And as such, 300kbps would have more information, but what is the 'more information' that it has? How does the music change, and do you really notice the difference between 192kbps and 300 kbps? Also, I heard WAV files mentioned; Are these 'better or worse' than MP3s? And how do MP3s compare to CD-quality music? Lastly, whats a bitrate.

So many questions Thanks for any info.
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 10:36 PM   #2 (permalink)
 
Wizard Techie

Join Date: Dec 2004

Location: Canada

Posts: 3,791

gaara is on a distinguished road

Default

Believe that bitrate is the same thing as what you described above in regards to audio quality. It really comes down to personal preference. Some people can tell the difference between different bitrates more than others and some do not like specific bitrates...this really comes down to personal opinion

Me, I'm fine with 128kbps and don't really notice anything "wrong" with it as I see other people describe but that may just be because I've only ever used 128kbps for the most part. Obviously one benefit to lower bitrate is that the file itself uses less space which might be useful for some people

Wavs I believe are the highest quality sounds and are what mp3s are converted into when being burned to an audio CD but don't quote me on that. Once again I only ever use mp3s and don't really notice a difference but it comes down to personal preference again

Basically, compare the bitrate of an audio file to the native resolution of a video file. Obviously a video with a native resolution of 1280x1024 will look better than 640x480
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
 
Banned

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 640

Green Radience

Default

Aah, I see. Well I found a fairly detailed article, and I think I understand the stuff now. I think I'll stick to 160kbps or something around that.
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:54 PM   #4 (permalink)
molsen's Avatar
 
i hate your face

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 1,164

molsen is on a distinguished road

Send a message via AIM to molsen
Default

yea usually 160kps is close to CD quality. most people can't tell the difference.
__________________
http://mattjolsen.tumblr.com
flickr

Intel E8400 @ 3.78ghz
8gb (4x2gb) G.SKILL DDR2 1600 @ 420mhz, 5-5-5-12
ASrock P43Twins1600 (hates RAM dividers)
WD Caviar 500gb + 250gb hdd, 32mb cache
eVGA 7900gs @ 585/1700mhz
OCZ GameXStream 600w PSU
Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum
Cooler Master Centurion 5 case
molsen is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:32 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
Ultra Techie

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 970

AnthraX is on a distinguished road

Default

WAVs are uncompressed audio files. Even the most intense audiophile can't tell the difference between a 320kbps encoded mp3 and an uncompressed WAV.

I recommend 128kbps-160kbps, maybe something a little bit higher (196kbps) when you have a song that has high high's and low low's. But then again, if you don't get a uber high-end mp3 player, you won't benefit from anything higher than 160kbps probably.

Also, a little tip. Don't raise the bitrate of an already encoded song. (IE: From 128kbps to 196kbps) It will lower the quality.
__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 02:07 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
Banned

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 640

Green Radience

Default

Thanks for the advice. What about encoding from 196kbps to 129kbps? Should be fine?
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:45 PM   #7 (permalink)
 
Ultra Techie

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 970

AnthraX is on a distinguished road

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Green Radience
Thanks for the advice. What about encoding from 196kbps to 129kbps? Should be fine?
Just the obvious quality losses of going from a higher bitrate to a lower bitrate.
__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:36 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
Banned

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 640

Green Radience

Default

Alright. Just wanted to confirm incase I ever started running out of the 30GB of space, lol.
Green Radience is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 04:44 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
Banned

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 3,480

maroon1 is on a distinguished road

Default

u can rip cds to lossless format like wma lossless, or FLAC.
these formats are little bet smaller than wav but they have the same quilty.

but anyway for mp3, i don't recommend anything under 192kb/s
maroon1 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 08:17 AM   #10 (permalink)
003
 
Wizard Techie

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 3,312

003 is on a distinguished road

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by molsen
yea usually 160kps is close to CD quality. most people can't tell the difference.
LOL, your kidding, right? I can easily tell a difference between lossless audio and a 128kbps mp3. The mp3 sounds muddy, with a compressed soundstage, with all the fine details removed. 160 and 128 I can not tell much difference. 192 is where the quality starts to go up. It still dosn't sound as good as lossless, but its a lot better than 160 or 128. Depending on how the mp3 was ripped, I can also tell the difference between 256/320 kbps mp3s, if I sit down for a while and listen to a song I know very well. They fall short in the high frequency range, but most people would not tell the difference.

Of course, I am listening on much higher end equipment than most people, but even on cheap speakers or headphones I can easily tell a 128 or 160kbps mp3.

I rip all my music in FLAC and listen with ASIO.
__________________
so, umm, err yeah
003 is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On