PDA

View Full Version : Preferred MP3 Quality when ripping to iPods



Astrobuoy
3rd June 2004, 09:25 PM
I tend to go for 192. Just wondering if anyone else has an opinion on the topic of selling yourself short on space by preferring the better quality of MP3's.

decryption
3rd June 2004, 10:08 PM
I use the --alt-preset standardquality in LAME when I encode MP3s.

Quamen
3rd June 2004, 10:16 PM
I use 192 when ripping. Just cause it's a nice mix between the two extremes.

I have been thinking about trying out the ACC format though. Not sure if it's worth it though.

What do you all reckon?

cmetom
3rd June 2004, 11:30 PM
i like 192 as well..

and i've only done it once so far, but if i rip the audio from a DVD (like a live concert, or whatever), i encode to 320.

pipsqeek
4th June 2004, 12:13 AM
I use 320 but VBR

Steve

rice mac
4th June 2004, 01:30 AM
MP3s @ 320, unless it is live recordings, spoken word or LPs.

Byrd
4th June 2004, 01:24 PM
Always been a fan of VBR MP3s here, kicking it at 160-192K and above - seems a good mix of decent quality compression vs. reasonable file size.

Mind you, that's just on a PC, not through iTunes, and is personal preference.

JB

pipsqeek
4th June 2004, 04:29 PM
Rice. I have LP's that are clearer then most CD's I have. Unfortunately because of their fragility, and collector item status, I don't use them at all. But with a Record player worth $1500.00 you would only expect the finest sound. 2nd to DAT.

btw, I have very sensitive ears when it comes to music..not volume wise, more towards quality and I can usually tell when an string instrument is even slightly out of tune...or not played properly.

Steve

kudos
4th June 2004, 08:20 PM
Sorry,

I have to 'chime' in here when I read stuff like this. It's really not like
me to appear negative in any way but I must address this last post.

It really doesn't matter how much a record player costs. It always
amazes me when I read about anyone suggesting an LP can sound
in any way superior to modern digital methods of recording/playback.

It's like the people who don't notice the difference between VHS & DVD.
VHS is analogue, it must be better! Without all that nasty digital sampling
stuff surely?

It doesn't matter how much you spend on a Penny Farthing it's never going
to better than a modern race bike, even if it had carbon fibre spokes!

I used to work at a Hi-Fi shop. I've owned 2 DAT machines. I heard plenty
of top end record players. I'm sure it doesn't surprise you to know
how easy it is to alter someones belief in something as subjective as audio
quality with suggestion alone.

We played tricks all the time!

The other classic is speaker wire, but I won't go into that now.

I mean no offence here to Steve at all, with my utmost sincerity, but I must
pass on my experience.

Kudos

PS. MP3 192Khz VBR rocks. AAC 160khz is better.

decryption
4th June 2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by kudos@Jun 4 2004, 08:20 PM
PS. MP3 192Khz VBR rocks. AAC 160khz is better.
It's kilobits, not kilohertz :P

pipsqeek
5th June 2004, 01:48 AM
Kudos.

Sorry, yes, todays technology is much better at producing sound of all sorts. This may contrdict what I had previously said....but, the reason for the high cost of my Record player is because of the Tone arm and pickup needle assembly being of high quality.

I also dabble (quite a fair bit) with Valve amplifiers. and most friends that hear then always ask if that's the solidstate amp or the valve one? I think older technology gives a warmer feel to the sound.

Maybe I worded the previous posting incorrectly. I think it should have read, "In my opinion....."

But I will say that records and their players are pretty good. I'm not talking about mum and dad's collection of Bourke Bacarakt (spelling?). The thing about LP's I hate is their fragility.

People also have varied opinions on valve technology. My opinion is that is valves were given another 10-20 years development, there would have been some serious stuff put out there. Towards the end of the valve era, there were minature valves that produced very little heat, had great characteristics and tonal quality. I use some in one of my "Whaa Whaa" pedals I have made.

Anyway, yes, I have played similar games on customers both in Audio work as well as working in Bars and Night clubs giving teens water (what looks like vodka) then seeing them 'acting' drunk somewhere later on. btw, the drinks were on the house so it was not like I was ripping them off.

Also, would like to just quickly point out something, about sound quality...comparing it to a Mac...we know our machines are better then most other brands out there...software included...so why do we still want to use a piece of plastic and metal that is 1/3rd the speed (on paper) to the competition? Sometimes old stuff like vinyl may not be worse because its old. Have a close listen next time to a quality stereo setup through the CD player and LP, I doubt most people will be able to tell any difference at all.

Appologies for the badly worded post previous to this, and heck, might as well include this post too.

Steve

Quamen
5th June 2004, 08:06 AM
Valves are the shit. For a guitar player anyway :)

It's all about the warmth they put off. It just feels better.

decryption
5th June 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by pipsqeek@Jun 5 2004, 01:48 AM
Anyway, yes, I have played similar games on customers both in Audio work as well as working in Bars and Night clubs giving teens water (what looks like vodka) then seeing them 'acting' drunk somewhere later on. btw, the drinks were on the house so it was not like I was ripping them off.
They drank water thinking it was vodka and didn't realise it's water?
hahaha, the ultimate scam :ph34r:

pipsqeek
5th June 2004, 04:55 PM
Yes it's the same as going to a Rave and seeing a teeniebopper get given half a panadol and later seeing him have a fit in the corner of the dance club..."Dude, its a fucken panadol, wake up to yourself"

Its all in your mind.

Sorry for this being waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy off the topic. See topic "All in your head"

Steve

LCGuy
5th June 2004, 06:00 PM
Let me just say this...

People are stupid.

Well, some people, anyhow.

Daltasaur
7th June 2004, 02:37 PM
I tend to go for 256kbit for encoding (generally AAC's nowdays), I cant tell much difference between it and 192 when listening on my Computer or iPod (iTrip does sound a tad better with 256, but iTrip is not helped by all the FM induced static).

But when I burn a playlist off to CD, it sounds much better (to my ears) when played back in the car or a decent stereo, mainly because there are not odd little inconsitances that my subconcious wonders where noise XYZ is. Of course its not as good as the original CD, but for effort value at creating my own custom mix CD it is good enough.

M

Nolanistic
7th June 2004, 07:53 PM
I myself think a lot of these social situations have to do with a placeboic affect. I myself rip at 256kbit AAC or Alt-Preset-extreme, depending on what computer I'm on. I can actually hear the difference, 128 AAC and MP3 sounds like it was recorded in a tin can.

the_argon
8th June 2004, 09:59 PM
I generally use 192kbit mp3 or 128k AAC

wickeddigital
8th June 2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Quamen@Jun 5 2004, 08:06 AM
Valves are the shit. For a guitar player anyway :)
It's all about the warmth they put off. It just feels better.
Actually the MAIN benefit of the Vacuum Tube (Valve) is the fact that they amplify the EVEN HARMONICS and NOT the ODD HARMONICS in the signal. This is particularly apparent when driving them into distortion, and on a guitar a distorting vacuum tube EATS the sound of ANY transistor based amplifier and YES you could pick the difference blind folded.

Having said that I am not convinced that vacuum tubes sound better on Hi-Fi components...go figure!

Also for what it is worth, blind tests have shown that very very few people can pick the difference between a CD at full sample rate and an MP3 at 192k....

Currawong
9th June 2004, 07:15 PM
My thoughts on the Hi-fi thing...most so called hi-fi shops, their high-end setups sound like crap. It is very subjective...as all audio equipment, from the components to the cables to the air in the room, adds some degree of distortion, comparing brands is really comparing what distortions to the music one prefers.

I've heard music though ultra-high-end minimalist transistor based equipment with similarly matched speakers and cables. The experience is unbelievable, with any kind of music.

At the moment, I'm considering ripping the CD's I have into my G5 as AIFF files, and getting a receiver that has optical input, so i can connect the G5 to it using high-end optical cable. It will be an interesting experiment to see how doing that compares to using a good quality CD player.

hawker
11th June 2004, 02:25 PM
192 is pretty much the same as CD qauilty. Get some tech to explain it to you one day... No need to go over it, you're just wasting space for encoding that really isn't that much better ;)

Quamen
11th June 2004, 02:30 PM
not really hawker. It's considered CD quality because it basically filters out all the sounds you can't here when it compresses it.

I find that just because you can't physically "hear" the sounds doesn't mean you don't notice them.

If I plug my computer into my stereo (which is how it is always set up cause Im too lazy to change CD) and crank mp3's at 192 and then stick the CD in. I can hear the difference. It's only slight, and only really noticable at higher volumes. But there is definately a difference there. The mp3's improve a bit at higher bit rates but NEVER sound the same as the CD. It's just a part of the way the compression works.

p996911turbo
16th July 2004, 01:30 AM
I usually encoding my music as Mp3s at 192kbps but the Wagner I just bought is all going in as Apple Lossless and I must say I'm really impressed with it. Takes alot of volume and careful listening to really notice a big difference but the thing that amazed was just how small the files are. I was expecting a bit smaller than AIFFs for a lossless codec but these are tiny! It takes in a CD for about 350MB of HD space. So far I've got three (soon to be 4) gigs of lossless and the rest of the 17.95GB is all MP3.

Ozi
16th July 2004, 05:55 AM
Thats a lot of music. From my listening experience, and from what other people have said, the 128 AAC is the same quality of sound as the 192 Mp3. So i just use 128 AAC for all my music, and have around 6 Gig so far. :)

OziMac
16th July 2004, 09:47 AM
Yep, I'm right with you Ozi. I started off with AAC 128kbps and while it has occurred to me that encoded at a slightly higher bitrate wouldn't hurt, those files are more than satisfactory for me. Only I have 22GB worth now ;)

yinyang
16th July 2004, 10:31 AM
most of my stuff is 192 aac, but for anything that i've burnt from another burning, i leave it at 128 mp3, since i don't know what the original burning was done at.
i was wondering if i should re-rip to conserve space (my collection stands at about 18GB atm) but have now decided that when i get to the 40GB level i'll just get a external hd for the music.
i did try the lossless when iTunes 4.5 came out, but coludn't really tell the difference between 192 aac on an iPod. anyway the worse thing about deciding to change which compression rate to use is that if you change you're mind a fair way in, it's quite a hassle to re-rip hundreds of cds...! :unsure:

Ozi
16th July 2004, 10:53 AM
Only I have 22GB worth now Ouch! I was justifying me having less music than everyone else on the grounds that I import at 128 and everyone else seems to import at 192, thus giving them a 50% "Gigabyte wow factor" bonus. And then I see that you have 22GB?! for shame! :D

*runs off to find more 2 hour live DJ sets....*

incidentally: http://www.generationtrance.com/ has awesome, free, legal trance

Also im loving project c at the moment! http://projectc.pixelstash.net/

dogmatic
18th July 2004, 04:19 PM
128 AAC suits me just fine. If it's aok for the iTunes Music Store... then surely, 100,000,000 can't be wrong! :)

Cam
18th July 2004, 04:25 PM
I prefer to go for 192..

Although their are hardly any noticable audible differences between 160kbps and 192kbps.. I think its worth the peace of mind :)

Plus, when they release new speaker systems, who knows?

Squozen
21st July 2004, 03:12 PM
I use 256kbps AAC, but I am a fairly critical listener (I use Grado SR-80 headphones on the iPod and some fairly costly speakers for loungeroom listening). 128kbps just sounds like garbage on this gear. If I used computer speakers or a midi system, I'm sure 128kbps would sound relatively okay compared to a CD.

Febs
21st July 2004, 04:53 PM
192kbps Mp3s or 128kbps AAC.

I've been converting everything to AAC lately.

plunkotica
6th August 2004, 04:37 AM
192kbps mp3.

what ive been encoding 2 since i had ever even heard of mp3 encoding. just seems like the right file size for the right amount of sound quality. not hard on the disk space, not hard on the ears. 160 or less and sometimes with poorly encoded tracks and you get this really 'tinny' sound output when being played.

Cam
6th August 2004, 08:34 AM
I believe the only difference between 192kbps and higher is completely psychosomatic.

You only feel like its different, because you think its different..

But, what's wrong with peace of mind?

plunkotica
6th August 2004, 03:03 PM
its like a 'placebo' effect with music encoding lol