mp3 bit rates

D

daveparker

Member
Out of interest I tried an experiment last night with differing mp3 bit rates and thought I would share my conclusions.

First I extracted a track from a CD as a wav, then using Nero Wave Editor (this is how I usually make mp3's) I made a 128Kbs/160Kbs and 256kbs mp3 using the "highest quality/slowest" conversion. I then loaded all the versions into Media player and listened to them through a fairly decent monitoring chain (Digi002R -> Mackie 1402VLZ -> Event 20/20 Bas V2).

Then by randomly pressing next in media player while not looking at the screen I would try and guess which version of the track was playing.

The 128kbs version stuck out like a sore thumb, some parts of the track were actually missing/inaudible. It's a bit of a shame that 128kbs has become a standard for the online stores such as iTunes (maybe AAC is better, I don't know).

I could hear a difference between the 160kbs and 256kbs and the wav, but I must admit I was having a hard time deciding which one was which. The differences were there but I found it difficult to decide which one was "better".

Anyway, an interesting learning experience. My main motivation is the fact I'm looking into the whole murky world of online distribution and wanted to understand the quality tradeoff's involved.

Dave
 
Yeah 128KBPS is shitty. I find that 192 KBPS is the best compromise between file size/quality. I don't hear much difference between 192 and 320 on most songs, but then again that could just be my ears or lack of real monitors.
 
I recently discovered most of my music collection was ripped to 128kbps :mad:

Fortunately, a lot of it came from my brother's massive CD library, so I can just spend a weekend or two, travelling about 2 1/2 hours, and sitting in a room with my laptop, ripping the music at a higher bitrate. I've got hard drive to spare... might as well do it at 256 or higher :D
 
I don't know where Window Media Audio (WMA) stands (maybe it just doesn't have widespread support, for example, in our Mixing Clinic and Soundclick) but a 128 kbps WMA file sounds a lot better to me than a 128 kbps mp3.
 
I use 192 myself. The files are a bit bigger than I would like, but there is a noticable difference in audio quality between 192 and lower rates. At least to my ears.
 
mawtangent said:
a 128 kbps WMA file sounds a lot better to me than a 128 kbps mp3.
Click to expand...

I've found that MP3 is possibly one of the worst encoding algorithms out there. WMA is better, AAC is better still and i've found the M4A (MP4) is top quality - in terms of comparing a 128kbs file i mean..

One of my friends did a serious amount of listening tests about this, and found that many people actually prefer the sound of a very high bitrate MP3 than the .wav file on certain sources, which brings into the equation how psychoacoustic determine what we prefer as a "better" sound...
 
The price of storage media continues to fall and fall, and internet connections get faster and faster.

I see no reason why in a few years we'll need MP3 anymore - we can just use wavs instead.

Incidentally I rip my CDs at 320kbps. Sure the file sizes are large, but I have the space for them (both on my iPod and hard drives) so I may as well. Plus it's not like I'm sharing them on the internet.

If I'm ripping my own mixes to MP3 to distribute, I wouldn't want to go much lower than 192kbps - the trade off in quality for that slightly smaller file is too large for me.
 
Interesting.

Unfortunatly it seems that all the online record stores (iTunes, napster, etc) are all 128kbs. My little test shows that there is a compromise in quality at that level, at least for mp3. This does seem to be changing though with things like iTunes Plus (256kbs, no DRM), but there is limited choice. It's only one major label releasing tracks in that format as I understand.

I might try and do the same thing with .aac.

.m4a is just .acc + DRM as I understand.

Dave
 
I always do 320kbps on my mixes, just to be sure I have the best quality MP3.

FYI, Costco has 1TB firewire external harddrives (Western Digital) at a little over 250.00!!! Seriously, thats kick ass!
 
MessianicDreams said:
I've found that MP3 is possibly one of the worst encoding algorithms out there. WMA is better, AAC is better still and i've found the M4A (MP4) is top quality - in terms of comparing a 128kbs file i mean..

One of my friends did a serious amount of listening tests about this, and found that many people actually prefer the sound of a very high bitrate MP3 than the .wav file on certain sources, which brings into the equation how psychoacoustic determine what we prefer as a "better" sound...
Click to expand...

Just to make this blatantly clear:

AAC is MP4/M4A.
M4A is what iTunes labels audio.
M4P is protected M4A.

I've found that a 128kbs AAC sounds about as good as a 256kbs MP3.
Most of my library is 128 AAC, if not Apple Lossless (for things I can't re-rip).
(Apple Lossless is just enormously high rate AAC, like 1100kbs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top