Differences in MP3 Bit rates
In doing some tests lately I?ve come across something interesting for myself and am curious as to what other people think of this.
For some reason, even though I consider myself fairly anal when it comes to audio quality, I simply cannot hear a difference in MP3 bit rates.
In trying to figure out what bit rate I should encode the songs from my CD collection onto my iPod in I did a test. I took a song (Pistelero, By Juno Reactor) and encoded it at 128Kpbs and 320Kbps. I stuck both these files onto my iPod and listened to them, expecting to hear a notable difference.
But amazingly they both sound EXACTLY the same to me. I can hear no difference whatsoever. This is not new either, I really have never been able to hear the differences between CD quality or encoded files.
Could it have been the quality of the headphones? Probably ($20 Koss studio headphones with gold jacks). Or maybe the program I ripped the files with (MMJB, don?t worry, I only use it for ripping). Or is this pretty common among people?
[1057 byte] By [
Vincent19] at [2007-11-9 13:01:18]
# 1 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
While I haven't tried this myself, I would imagine that with better headphones or through a high end stereo using the line out, you COULD tell the difference.
My approach has been to consider the RIPS as archival entities. Rip at the highest level (if you can afford the disk space) then you never have to rip again. If you ever intend to use as a source for a device that is high end enough to tell the difference, you will already have the quality.
I am ripping, and accuratly tagging everything so that I have a high quality library. Then I fill the iPod up with what I want... I have a 15Gig model, and am starting to run out of space. But I would rather rotate music on and off it then cutting down the bitrate to save space (even if I can't tell the difference).
Just my way of doing things... YMMV
slr001 at 2007-11-15 14:15:42 >
# 2 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
I have to agree. Plug it into a good stereo and you'll hear the difference. There's a lot you miss with the buds.
Jack at 2007-11-15 14:16:42 >
# 3 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
I can tell between 128, 160, 192 and 256.
128 is poor.
160 is OK but 192 seems noticeably better.
256 doesn't seem a big jump in quality.
For me, 192 seems a good compromise
# 4 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
I use VBR, average kb/s works out to about 192 kb/s (encoded using the LAME encoder with the "--alt-preset standard" setting), and I can't tell the difference between this and CBR 320, but those are my worn out ears...I can tell a difference if I go any lower than 192.
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 14:18:47 >
# 5 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
For all my ripped mp3s, I've used either MMJB ripper or easy CD-DA extractor at 192 kbps. For mp3 files I was unable to rip (for many reasons), all have a minimum bitrate of 128kbps.
For me, 192 is the perfect compromize between size and quality...roughly 1/9 the size of the WAV file, but sounding nearly the same, to my ears through my good headphones.
There is a difference between 128 and 192 and 320... 128 sounds like CD quality, but a little muddy. 192 sounds much clearer, IMO, but remains CD quality...highs seem more pronounced....320 sounds really good, but come at high sizes, and IMO are not as great a leap from 192 as 192 is from 128 to warrant a difference.
BTW, I use CBR, I don't like VBR, sounds a little...harsh to me, personally.
Also, some people claim using fraunhauffer (sp?) rippers and all that causes severely degraded quality....however, the speed of using easy cd-da extractor and mmjb versus the EAC/whatever it is rip isn't worth it (7 minutes versus 45 seconds...what would you rather do when you are ripping through all your cds).
Anyway, there is a difference between the bitrates, but if you don't notice the differences I'd suggest using the smallest one, giving you more space.
# 6 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
If you can't tell the difference, consider yourself very lucky. You will get the same amount of enjoyment and more space. Personally, I would hate it if I were an audiophile and had to encode everything at 256 or 320.
BigIzz at 2007-11-15 14:20:56 >
# 7 Re: Differences in MP3 Bit rates
I'm with those who say that you might well hear a difference between different bitrates if you listened through better headphones or speakers. I couldn't hear differences through the iPod earbuds (though I think they're perfectly adequate for out walking around.) When I ripped comparison versions and played them through my big open diaphragm Sennheisers in a quiet room, the EAC/LAME vbr versions (they run around 190) brought tears to my eyes. (This was YoYo Ma playing the Bach unaccompanied cello suites, my standard comparison piece.) Couldn't say the same for 128 kbps. I didn't test other rates.
I also agree with BigIzz that life is less expensive for those who can't hear or don't care about subtle differences. But personally, I was really impressed with the sound of the EAC versions played through the iPod. As others have said, it depends on what you want the mp3s for. I figure it's worth making them really good if it only takes a little extra time up front.
