Digital Users...which bitrate?

[Shaun]

Question for the digital converts...what bitrate have you ripped your MP3's at?

After quite a lot of testing and playback over the system with different bitrates, I noticed no real audible difference between 224, 256 and 320k. Anything lower than the 224 and it became slightly noticeable (nothing that couldn't be rectified with some serious EQ tweaking though).

In the end I opted for 224k, which I'm happy with. I suspect most folk have gone for a higher bitrate though?. If I'm honest I had doubts to whether I should have gone higher, but I was past the point of no return. So, just curious....what's your bitrate?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

5 years ago I ripped at 128Kbps and a year ago re-ripped at 320kbps.

I've said it before, but as HDD space is so cheap, you might as well go for the highest you can, maybe even wav?

I still maintain that it's the quality and production of the original file that decides the output quality.

I have a few files ripped at 128kbps that sound much better than some ripped at 320.

[Tom]

I currently use 128kbps

[ppentertainments]

5 years ago I ripped at 128Kbps and a year ago re-ripped at 320kbps.

I've said it before, but as HDD space is so cheap, you might as well go for the highest you can, maybe even wav?

I still maintain that it's the quality and production of the original file that decides the output quality.



Agree Totally.
Have al mine ripped at 320kbps as Hard Drive are so cheap I think you might as well rip as high as poss. Must say different ripping software can make a difference IMO

[Shaun]

Good points. There is no way in hell I'm re-ripping again...EVER! :lol:

(Peter, look away NOW!) :D

It was one of the most tedious jobs ever.

[spin mobile disco]

320kps bitrate. Also as they are constant bitrate means the end playout system has less efort to decode them. Well worth doing in my opinion.

[Vectis]

320k VBR nowadays, but back when HDDs weren't so cheap I have a bunch of archive stuff at 192k or 256k CBR and VBR.

[Jiggles]

I have a bit of everything. All sound the same mind.

[djsteve10]

Mine are abit of everything too,
192kb/s is the preffered choice at the moment, i cant really tell the difference in sound once they are put through a good quality sound card.

[Penfold42]

320 here....


It was one of the most tedious jobs ever.

I actually liked it.....:eek: ...in a strange way.......
I use to set targets each night on how many to rip.....:o

[ppentertainments]

320 here....



I actually liked it.....:eek: ...in a strange way.......
I use to set targets each night on how many to rip.....:o

Not quite as sad but I must admit enjoyed it due to reminding myself of a lot of 'forgotten' tracks on cd's which I rarely use.

[blitz]

when i first changed i was ripping at 192 changed to 320 about a year ago, can`t really say i have noticed any diffrence, planning on having a good test session once my new gig box is finished and using the rcf rig see if i can notice a diffrence.
at the end of the day once you are in a venue with 100 or so ppl there will be that much back ground noise, colouration etc there is no way a punter would notice the diffrence.

[Adam_F]

320 here too

[CRAZY K]

320 because HDD space is so cheap--

Dont forget downloads dont always come at 320--I think my I tunes are 192
so ripping at 320 doesnt improve quality.:D

But they sound fine anyway--

CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

Variable Bit Rate is supposedly much better sound quality than fixed bit rates. Not being an mp3 person, I think I'll stay with wave files, when I go digital.

[sleah]

Question for the digital converts...what bitrate have you ripped your MP3's at?

After quite a lot of testing and playback over the system with different bitrates, I noticed no real audible difference between 224, 256 and 320k. Anything lower than the 224 and it became slightly noticeable (nothing that couldn't be rectified with some serious EQ tweaking though).

In the end I opted for 224k, which I'm happy with. I suspect most folk have gone for a higher bitrate though?. If I'm honest I had doubts to whether I should have gone higher, but I was past the point of no return. So, just curious....what's your bitrate?

My experience has been pretty much as you describe.
I'm now settled on 256K. I can't see the point of going to 320K as most of the time you can't tell the difference (for all the reasons mentioned in the thread).
Although hard disks are cheap, I don't want to have to be replacing them for no real huge gain. I use an internal laptop drive, it's only in the last few months they've been over 80gb at a realistic price anyway.
My current collection ~9250 tracks is 50Gb and won't be rapidly expanding anytime soon.

Besides, as mentioned, re-ripping my early stuff would be a reet ball ache:D

[DazzyD]

Being a complete complete techno-freak (meaning computers and not beepy dance music!) I started archiving CDs to MP3 in 1998 just before the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany (which developed the patent we know as MP3) began enforcing their licence/patent rights which, in turn, prevented companies from including MP3 encoders with there software products. In this time, I've amassed a collection of over 15,000 tracks (in total - some are repeated). I started archiving at 128kbs but now I find that 192kbs is the perfect compromise between sound quality and file size. This works for me and no complaints so far!

[rob1963]

I started ripping at 128, until someone on here suggested that was a bit low.

Therefore, I started again using 256, as nobody is going to tell the difference between that & 320.

Also, as I'm storing my music on an 80gb ipod, I don't have as much space as many people.

[Excalibur]

I started ripping at 128, until someone on here suggested that was a bit low.

Therefore, I started again using 256, as nobody is going to tell the difference between that & 320.

Also, as I'm storing my music on an 80gb ipod, I don't have as much space as many people.

Since I bought a 500gig HD today, all I can say is:

1) I think it might be a bit big
2) Rob, isn't yours small! :eek: :p :D

[rob1963]

Rob, isn't yours small! :eek: :p :D

There's no need to get personal, Excalibur!!!

It's not as small as you think though.

My 5,000-6,000 songs only take up about half of the 80gb on the ipod (including the library), so there is plenty of room for the additions I get over the next five years or so before I retire.

However, if I'd ripped everything at 320, things would be a fair bit tighter & I wouldn't have as much free space to play with on the ipod.

[Jaggiebunnett]

With the older music (like pre-90s) being recorded with a peak of 0db, 128 - 192 kbs is fine usually for that.
Most newer music (especially rock) is much more compressed and usually recorded at or around +4db which is really flung out there where even WAV has a problem keeping up with it sometimes.
For this newer stuff I use 256-320kbs or for some older stuff I have if it sounds squelchy at a lower bit rate.
Of course this all applies to rips from CDs, other sources may have their own compliance isues.

[Corabar Steve]

320 CBR. :sj:

[JAMdisco]

Most of mine is ripped at 192, some are 320 and TBH I can't tell the difference so I doubt the punters will know. Seriously thinking of going for WAVs if/when the new licence comes out when ripping from CD. I'll also use WMA files (usually 192) so I shouldn't have to pay for the conversions.

[Steve the DJ]

Good points. There is no way in hell I'm re-ripping again...EVER!

It was one of the most tedious jobs ever.

I decided to rip to Flac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec) using EAC (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/) as I know in the future my software of choice (OtsAV) will handle a lossless format (in fact it does now, just not with full functionality), plus I wanted a perfect archive copy of my original CD's, just in case.

By ripping to Flac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec) I have a lossless copy, 60 - 70% the size of the original Wav file with identical audio quality but fully tagged the same as an MP3.

I can then use dBpoweramp Music Converter (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm) to convert a copy to any format I wish such as VBR MP3, CBR MP3, AAC, OGG etc. or even back to a full Wav file.

This way I have ripped once and will never have to rip the CD or enter artist/track information again.

As far as the original question goes, I currently use VBR MP3's with a 32kbps floor and a max rate of 320kbps (OtsAV default settings). The average file is around 224kbps and 4MB is size.

[Dragonfly]

I ripped everything at 192 but then on listening reripped everything at 320

[Silver]

I don't care, because EVERYTHING I rip goes through this little puppy and it makes a big difference on the final sound ................... http://www.platinumnotes.com/ http://planetsmilies.net/music-smiley-1306.gif

[cara]

is that platinum notes just a normaliser silver?

[rob1963]

is that platinum notes just a normaliser silver?

That's what it looks like to me, in which case it's not relevant to this thread, as it's nothing to do with the bit rate music is ripped at.

I might have missed something, though...as I'm a bit thick!

:rolleyes:

[mr rusty]

There are some interesting graphs to be found here

http://cf2mweb.phpnet.org/comparatif_audio/index.php

I realise they are in french, but easy enough to understand. You will see that MP3 at 128 kbps cuts off everything above 14khz, whilst at 160 kbps you get everything up to about 16khz, and the higher bit rates keep even more of the very high tones (compare the wave forms to the raw WAV data). I don't know whether you have ever tested yourself with a tone generator, but middle age people can't hear much above 13khz, whilst youngsters might just hear 16khz. Above that and you are in the realm of bats. Audiophiles argue that even though you can't hear the super-high frequencies, they still interact with what you can hear to "improve" the sound.

Bottom line. In a disco situation you probably won't be able to hear any difference between 128kps MP3 and 256 or 320. Personally I tend to rip to 192kbps

[JAMdisco]

Bottom line. In a disco situation you probably won't be able to hear any difference between 128kps MP3 and 256 or 320. Personally I tend to rip to 192kbps

:agree: especially with all the general chatter and clinking of glasses and other extrinsic noises, very hard to tell I reckon.

[Tom]

I don't know whether you have ever tested yourself with a tone generator, but middle age people can't hear much above 13khz, whilst youngsters might just hear 16khz. Above that and you are in the realm of bats.

Bit off topic but while at college this was done as part of our coursework in live music. I got up to 21k which i think it rather good as the highest is about 22k that no one can hear over.

I think if you can rip at a higher kbps then go for it as the player has less to decode and giving a better, fuller sound.

[Penfold42]

I don't care, because EVERYTHING I rip goes through this little puppy
Means he rips at any 'bitrate'


in which case it's not relevant to this thread, as it's nothing to do with the bit rate music is ripped at.
Yes it is.......he's telling you....he don't care what rate......or have i lost the plot.....:o

I might have missed something, though...as I'm a bit thick!

Getaway.....:eek: :rolleyes: :D :D :D

[rob1963]

he's telling you....he don't care what rate......or have i lost the plot.....:o

I know that's what he's saying, but it's not answering the question!

Bit like someone asking "should I get speaker A or speaker B" and everyone replying "I don't care"

Doesn't help much!

[Daryll]

Always 320kbs at CBR.
Daryll

[Penfold42]

I know that's what he's saying, but it's not answering the question!

Bit like someone asking "should I get speaker A or speaker B" and everyone replying "I don't care"

Doesn't help much!

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/penny2.jpg

:o :D

[mr rusty]

you can do a bit of a test here

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

Through my computer speakers I can't hear anything in the 16Khz column. Through my studio monitors I can *just* detect the presence of a sound.

Not very scientific unless you are absolutely sure you are not listening to harmonics!

[Shakermaker Promotions]

99.9% of mine are 320 and the ones that aren't I will get round to sorting.

[BeerFunk]

I have a mixture too, anywhere between 128 and 320, with 192 being preferred. On some of the tracks I ripped at 128, I did think they sounded a bit flat, so I re-ripped at 192. I've also found the encoder used can make a difference - one MP3 at 160kbps can sound better than another MP3 at 320kbps, due to poor encoding software. These days, I don't think that comes into play anymore, but it certainly used to.

I also always stick to CBR - VBR can cause problems with some playback software or hardware, particularly where precision is required (ie. very important to us!)


I think if you can rip at a higher kbps then go for it as the player has less to decode and giving a better, fuller sound.
Surely that would only theoretically affect the load on the decoder, not the quality? Think of a zip file which is heavily compressed - it takes the computer longer to unzip it, but the final data is the same.

[Silver]

I know that's what he's saying, but it's not answering the question!

Bit like someone asking "should I get speaker A or speaker B" and everyone replying "I don't care"

Doesn't help much!
Well I would suggest it helps quite a lot. It means if you do not have a choice or for whatever reason, you can rip at ANY bitrate then put the track through Platinum notes and you'll get every track at 320 kbps.

[Corabar Steve]

But if you rip at a lower rate, you can't add back the bits that were removed.

All you'll end up with is a 192 track ripped at 320.

[Boogie Boy]

But if you rip at a lower rate, you can't add back the bits that were removed.

All you'll end up with is a 192 track ripped at 320.

I find it strange that people don't understand this basic piece of knowledge.

As an experiment, as I generally don't use mp3, I ripped a track at a variable rate (196-320 I believe) and the resulting file ended up at something over 600 kbps sampling rate. Is that possible or was there an error in the sample bit rate count?

[Dragonfly]

ok mr technical numpty here ........ if you have a track at 192 then rerip it for whatever reason ..... if you ripped it at 192 would you then lose even more of the sound quality? sorry for being thick .... just wondered this for a while.

[rob1963]

Well I would suggest it helps quite a lot. It means if you do not have a choice or for whatever reason, you can rip at ANY bitrate then put the track through Platinum notes and you'll get every track at 320 kbps.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand.

If you rip at 128 you'll lose some of the quality compared to ripping at 320.

How can that quality be put back by putting the file through Platinum notes?

Surely that's a bit like recording a high quality digital track onto a cassette tape & then thinking you can get brilliant quality if you copy the cassette onto a brand new digital mini disc.

[CRAZY K]

But if you rip at a lower rate, you can't add back the bits that were removed.

All you'll end up with is a 192 track ripped at 320.

Exactly

CRAZY K

[CRAZY K]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand.

If you rip at 128 you'll lose some of the quality compared to ripping at 320.

How can that quality be put back by putting the file through Platinum notes?

Surely that's a bit like recording a high quality digital track onto a cassette tape & then thinking you can get brilliant quality if you copy the cassette onto a brand new digital mini disc.

I assume that program is to take the rough edges off old recordings although I suspect you would need a vastly more expensive piece of equipment to properly "remaster" tracks for a significant improvement.

What amused me was--if the program removes distortion--what happens to all those Jimi Hendrix guitar solos :eek: :eek: :eek:

Not that I ever play them at my functions :cool:

CRAZY K

[Corabar Steve]

I have edited a typo in my last post & the 2 posts that quoted it (just in case either Boogie Boy or Crazy K wondered why I have edited their posts)

[Tom]

I have been thinking about re ripping all of my music. As I want to do this full time I wish to have the best sound possible to go with the best playout system I could afford.

I have just done a little test. This is for a 19 track cd as a tester.

at 128kbps = 66mb
at 320kbps = 164mb
at wav = 726mb

Now I have done some research on some audio forums and they say if you can use WAV. Now I don't know about you but I don't think i could give up 3/4 of a gig for just one cd.

So far I think I will go for 320 but still not to sure.

[Tony Scott]

I have some older files at 128 but most are now at 256 or 320.

I have read that the compression and merging of bass frequencies down to 128kps can in some instances improve the overall tonal quality of the bottom end of some songs.
I would agree with this as I have some songs which are ripped from the same .wav file but are at 128kps & 256kps, the bass on the 128 is tighter and more punchy sounding which for some dance tunes is desirable......

.....this is obviously not the case with more 'musical' type songs. :)

Edit: I'll see if I can find the article and post it up here.

[Vectis]

I have read that the compression and merging of bass frequencies down to 128kps can in some instances improve the overall tonal quality of the bottom end of some songs.
I would agree with this as I have some songs which are ripped from the same .wav file but are at 128kps & 256kps, the bass on the 128 is tighter and more punchy sounding which for some dance tunes is desirable......


I've noticed this on some very old recordings (pre-stereo) where a 128 or 192 rip results in a 'cleaner' and 'warmer' version than 320 which retains the original rawness/"fingernails down blackboard" edginess of some songs.

But for the vast majority of music, 320 is the way to go if you want to carry a large collection on just a couple of HDDs.

[Totally Plucked]

I don't care, because EVERYTHING I rip goes through this little puppy and it makes a big difference on the final sound ................... http://www.platinumnotes.com/ http://planetsmilies.net/music-smiley-1306.gif

Have been Toying with the idea of Platinum Notes, what is your Honest opinion ?
I use MP3GAIN on all my files and all the levels are ripped at 89db gain which 'Normalises' the sound. Just wondering if I would find any benefit from using Platinum Notes ?

[Silver]

Have been Toying with the idea of Platinum Notes, what is your Honest opinion ?
I use MP3GAIN on all my files and all the levels are ripped at 89db gain which 'Normalises' the sound. Just wondering if I would find any benefit from using Platinum Notes ?

I swear by the product, I'm not computer savvy enough to explain what it does or how it does it. All I know is that all 6,000 of my tracks have gone through PN and they all sound great, be that, they were downloaded or ripped from a cd.

I have e mailed the owner of P N and asked if he can come on the site to explain with much more 'know how' than I have. I had a reply and he will do when he comes back from "being on the road"

Don't worry, he's not going to try and spam everybody and stir things up but simply, in an educated way explain what P N does to a track. :)