preferred compression bit rate

TopicsAll ForumsGeneralThe Corner Pubpreferred compression bit rate

This topic has 9 voices, contains 13 replies, and was last updated by  slimbrspickins 612 days ago.

February 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm Quote #52397

frankm
(4737)

I was converting some audio for personal use. I was wondering what other people prefer. I prefer M4A to MP3, better compression and file size in my opinion. For those of you who who use a compressed format for personal use. What is your preferred format and more importantly your preferred bit rate. I take into account sound quality and file size. Just curious.


  Quote
February 14, 2016 at 6:12 pm Quote #52401

Mac22
(3193)

If it’s for me i go MP3.


  Quote
February 14, 2016 at 6:35 pm Quote #52402

JasonA
(1009)

320k AAC/m4a for my iPod in the car.


  Quote
February 14, 2016 at 7:15 pm Quote #52403

Gilligan
(1415)

I use mp3 160. I think it’s noticeably better than 128, but can’t tell the difference from 320.


  Quote
February 14, 2016 at 8:52 pm Quote #52404

guitard
(7354)

Video is my thing, and like audio, bitrate is very important. But equally, if not more important, is the manner in which the video is encoded. So I wonder if the same applies to audio?


  Quote
February 14, 2016 at 9:56 pm Quote #52405

kaloway
(1869)

I like the TK321 upgrade. It worked in Boogie Nights.


  Quote
February 15, 2016 at 5:10 am Quote #52409

Chris UK
(2980)

For my portable music players (Creative Zens) I use MP3 at 320k. Other formats are better but I find most people can handle MP3s, I play in covers bands so I need to be able to share tunes with band members so they can be learnt.

For home use I also used to use MP3 but am now in the process of converting my music archive to FLACs which I stream around the house to various Squeezeboxes.


  Quote
February 15, 2016 at 8:20 am Quote #52414

frankm
(4737)

Gilligan: I use mp3 160.I think it’s noticeably better than 128, but can’t tell the difference from 320.

In my opinion what your ears hear should be the biggest factor. Everyone’s ears hears something a little bit different. Back in 1998/1999 when Napster was huge, I read that 128 was “near CD quality”. I did a side by side comparison of the MP3 and CD. I thought 128 sounded noticeably worse. I started encoding MP3s at 160 or 192. I have since moved from MP3 to M4A/ACC cuz it has better compression and sound quality in my opinion. M4A also works on every one of my devices.

Lately I’ve been wondering about the bit rate. Looking at the audio in a spectral analysis I can visual see some differences. Which makes me think I should use a rate of 200 or higher. That brings up another interesting point. Everyone is familiar with the MP3 encoding, 128, 192, 256 and 320 but I have been using dbPowerAmp for converting and it has for M4A bit rates of 100, 150, 170, 200, 250 and 320 … weird. I’m thinking I will use 200 or 250 but need to compare the file size.

Of course this is all for personal use, lossy audio or lossy sourced audio should never be traded.


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 4:57 pm Quote #52432

jroundy
(1366)

guitard: Video is my thing, and like audio, bitrate is very important.But equally, if not more important, is the manner in which the video is encoded.So I wonder if the same applies to audio?

More than 10 years ago, I was creating MP3 files from CD’s, and discovered that in the program I was using, there was an option for quality on the encoding process.

There was a huge difference on how the MP3 was encoded. The default setting in the program I was using was a low quality encoding process. I ended up redoing many songs, after switching to the highest quality encoding process.


The poor folks play for keeps down here…They’re the living dead. Nobody rules these streets at night like Van Halen!!


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 5:13 pm Quote #52433

jroundy
(1366)

Gilligan: I use mp3 160.I think it’s noticeably better than 128, but can’t tell the difference from 320.

I agree… I could always hear a difference between 128 and 160, but used 192 just to makes sure it sounded the best. But that was more than 10 years ago, when storage and playback devices had much smaller memory. Now I use only 256 or 320.

I did a blind fold comparison playing a CD through the same device as a 192 MP3, and I could not pick which was the CD.

I have also downloaded a 320 MP3, that sounded like shit, because the person who encoded it, must have used a poor quality encoding process.


The poor folks play for keeps down here…They’re the living dead. Nobody rules these streets at night like Van Halen!!


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 5:15 pm Quote #52434

jroundy
(1366)

The “Live Without A Net” DVD has an audio track that is 192 MP3.


The poor folks play for keeps down here…They’re the living dead. Nobody rules these streets at night like Van Halen!!


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 5:19 pm Quote #52435

jroundy
(1366)

This thread reminds me of something Ed has said….”If it sounds good, it’s good.”


The poor folks play for keeps down here…They’re the living dead. Nobody rules these streets at night like Van Halen!!


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 5:27 pm Quote #52436

JasonA
(1009)

jroundy: The “Live Without A Net” DVD has an audio track that is 192 MP3.

No it doesn’t, DVD spec doesn’t allow for MP3 audio.


  Quote
February 16, 2016 at 9:55 pm Quote #52440

slimbrspickins
(336)

kaloway: I like the TK321 upgrade.It worked in Boogie Nights.

:mrgreen:


  Quote

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.