Newb needs advice on bitrates
I'm so new to ipods that mine hasn't even arrived yet. So please keep in mind I've never even seen one yet. I purchased the new model 10gb.
My music collection consists on actual CDs, not downloads, but I do see myself downloading (legally, of course :) after I get the ipod, but I'm not sure what bitrate is ideal. My previous walkman was a Sony Minidisc so my only option was 132kps. Now I have the option of 32-320k in half a dozen different formats! You can see how someone like I could be perplexed. Is 320k really worth it given that I only have 10gbs? Or should I stick with 128k.
I see itunes for pc (I use a windows me Sony pc with a 4-pin firewire if that's at all relevant) is probably going to be released before I recive my ipod, giving me the option of that new format AAC.
I would use this mainly as a walkman of course, but I wanted to connect it to my desk stereo and car stereo as well. Since there it would be playing rather loud, what bitrate should I be using?
Also, what hardware accessories should I get? I read the info on the Griffin iTrip and since I live in a huge metropolis, I figure that's no good since so many peopl ehave problems with interference.
Let me know, thanks!
# 1 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Go 192 kbps, LAME encoded.
Any higher and you don't reap the rewards unless you spend big in speaker (and are anal retentive).
With 10 gig, that leaves over 1600 songs. Now unless you have lots of crappy songs, or just don't respect music, then thats plenty.
As for AAC, just stick with MP3. I have done blind listening tests (the program randomises) and actually rated AAC lower than MP3 at the same bitrate, which I think is somewhat due to the encoder. Still, its not the best thing since sliced bread even though apple and blind fanboys would like to tell you so.
If your stero's really good, I mean into the thousands, then I reccomend you go with >192, but then your losing out on the amount of songs you can hold.
Adam at 2007-11-15 17:40:38 >
# 2 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
I would recommend doing it at 160k. It is virtually CD quality and it doesn't take up as much space as 192k. 128k is good to, and honestly I cannot hear much difference between 128k to 192k.
# 3 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
My ears are pretty bad from listening to loud music and going to rock concerts for so many years, so to me 192k sounds identical to the CD. No need to waste space with higher bitrates if it sounds the same to me anyway. Some of my friends complain that anything less than 256 or 320 is crap, but they're just crazy.
# 4 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
128 does sound noticeably flat, and poor. 160 is slightly but noticeably better, while 192 is getting to CD quality to my ears. I can't hear a difference between 192 and 256, and would have to go to 320 to get a worthwhile improvement, and that makes file sizes much too big.
192 is the compromise that works for me. I don't use VBR and I rip in iTunes on a Mac running OS 9.2.2.
# 5 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
i?d recommend using eac/lame with the configuration of alt preset standard (let?s forget the dashes for now) for ripping and encoding your tracks. 192k with variable bitrate is the best way to go imho.
m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 17:44:39 >
# 6 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Interesting that the default in iTunes is 160.....
# 7 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
that really is interesting. eac let?s you choose the bitrate additionally to the config of --alt-preset standard (there i inserted the dashes after all ;) ). i?m sure itunes let?s you do the same.
m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 17:46:42 >
# 8 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
What is this --alt- preset standard?
Is it a method of encoding mp3s?
nubin at 2007-11-15 17:47:46 >
# 9 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Yes, it does, and the default becomes whatever you used last, but the setting which comes as standard the first time you fire up iTunes from new is 160...
Rather misleadingly, Apple call 128 'Good', 160 'Better' and 192 'High' quality.
# 10 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Originally posted by nubin
What is this --alt- preset standard?
Is it a method of encoding mp3s?
yes it?s a command line option for the (eac/)lame encoder. i only have a basic understanding of what it does exactly (next to very good mp3?s ;) ), maybe someone cares to elaborate?
m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 17:49:44 >
# 11 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Originally posted by Jackonicko
Yes, it does, and the default becomes whatever you used last, but the setting which comes as standard the first time you fire up iTunes from new is 160...
Rather misleadingly, Apple call 128 'Good', 160 'Better' and 192 'High' quality.
does that mean itunes doesn?t let you go above 192? or is there a superduper quadruple high quality setting? ;)
is the same the case for aac files (128, 160, 192)?
m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 17:50:54 >
# 12 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
I'll copy what I posted in another aac/mp4 thread:
I use Nero's 'transparent' setting. 110-150kb/s
It doesn't stick strictly to a 150 boundary though, some songs peek at just over 200kb/s. I encoded the same song at all the various presets in Nero and if I recall the 'transparent' files weren't much larger than the standard 128kb/s ones.
For me this setting was the ideal compromise between sound quality and file size. And generally I much prefer the sound of AAC in comparison to mp3, it sounds closer to the CD to my ears.
In addition..., the file sizes are smaller than those encoded with Quicktime/iTunes @ 160Kbps. Now, there is a downside to this in that the files encoded in Nero do not playback correctly in Quicktime/iTunes. It isn't just my setup either, others have reported @ hydrogenaudio that either the files don't play at all, or they sound distorted.
So why do I bother? Because the Nero files work fine on the iPod and sound great. Even with the extension .mp4 :rolleyes: :D I'm probably going to use iTunes just for making smart playlists and rating songs. It's too cumbersome compared to Winamp just for playing back my songs.
# 13 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Originally posted by m.r.m.
does that mean itunes doesn?t let you go above 192? or is there a superduper quadruple high quality setting? ;)
is the same the case for aac files (128, 160, 192)?
The recent iTunes for Windows (v. 4.1.0.52) has these bit rate options for the AAC Encoder.
# 14 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
From the given options I voted 192 kbit. IMO 192 kbit is the best quality/size compromise.
I myself use APS setting and will continu to rip my cds with EAC/LAME APS [VBR 192kbit average].
godcha at 2007-11-15 17:53:51 >
# 15 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
im using 160 VBR for the most part with some stuff that i really like encoded higher and some stuff i dont like as much encoded lower. seems to work out great with my 10 gig. 1233 songs and still more than 3.5 gigs left
bb_dg at 2007-11-15 17:54:56 >
# 16 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
Well I wanted to vote, I really did. But the poll itself is kinda vague, IMO.
What format are we even talking about here, AAC or MP3? And don't tell me "Oh of course he means MP3" just because that's still more popular overall simply do to it's market penetration.
AAC is up and coming and it's better (sorry Adam, but it is, in most respects). So if the person that began the poll meant AAC I'd say I'll be doing all my new rips for my soon-to-arrive iPod at 192Kbps or greater AAC.
If it's for MP3 encoding it's the standard of all standards:
EAC for ripping, LAME for encoding using --alt-preset standard
I can't stand CBR because it's been proven that some parts of a song require more and some parts require less to encode. With CBR you're making a compromise on the sound quality just to begin with. VBR is way better and has been proven as such in most situations.
But once again, this is a matter of personal choice and taste. What is *best* for you is simply *best* for you. Simple.
br0adband
# 17 Re: Newb needs advice on bitrates
I totally agree that VBR is the only way to go - unless you want to waste space for the sake of consistent file sizes, or need the compatibility for legacy devices/software.
But isn't AAC "more" CBR than --alt-preset standard, in that it throws more bits at silent and low-complexity parts of a track?
