MP3 encoding rate for best quality

[sCiEnT]

This might not be the best forum to post this question but I was unable to find any other suitable place.

My current 128kbps MP3 files are sounding tinny on my HT system and I was going to re-encode them at a higher bitrate. But before I do that I would like to know what would be an ideal bitrate and format to encode.

Should I go with lossy or lossless encoding? With MP3 or WAV (I would like to play it on my iPod though).

How have you folks encoded your music for play on your HT gear with out losing clarity?

 

[cgk]

Best Codec

Here is an article that discusses blind testing done of various codecs including AAC (avaialble with iTunes and playable on the iPod) and MP3. Twice in these tests AAC came out on top.

I would suggest you use your iTunes to rip several different versions of a couple of songs. Try Apple Lossless, AAC, and a couple of different rate MP3's. Burn a CD of each type. Play them over your home theater having someone else switch them around and see if you can hear any difference. (Of course, if you are downloading the files from the Internet, you cannot regain data that had previously been compressed away.) If you can hear a difference, use whichever sounds best. If you cannot hear a difference, use whichever takes up the least space. The nice thing with iTunes and the iPod is that there are many configurations to try out.

 

[WmAx]

I would suggest you use your iTunes to rip several different versions of a couple of songs. Try Apple Lossless, AAC, and a couple of different rate MP3's. Burn a CD of each type.

The Itunes MP3 encoder hardly qualifies as one that is demonstrated to be a solid performer. Refer to Lame for MP3 encoding. It would not be fair to judge MP3 based on a second rate encoder.

-Chris

 

[SilverMK3]

download CDEX and set the Lame mp3 encoder to "--alt-preset extreme". This seems to be the perfect compromise between file size and quality. It encodes at a variable bitrate between 128kbps and 320kbps, adjusting itself dynamically to suite the complexity of the audio track. Compatibility should not be an issue, as every hardware and software mp3 decoder manufactured in the last 5 years should be able to read a VBR mp3.

 

[Mega2000]

with iTunes you can do variable bit rate too.

I find that ripping at 192k in AAC is the perfect sound to space combo I have found. actually 160k AAC aint too bad either.

I used to rip to variable bit rate mp3s (128-256) and those always sounded good, but now I do AAC.

if you have time, rip a song using a bunch of different bit rates and codecs and listen to them loud on your system and go with the one that sounds best.

I couldn't really tell the difference between the AAC lossless and the 192k AAC so I went w/ the 192k. Also, unless you listen to your ipod through you system while sitting right in the sweet spot between the left and right speakers, I wouldn't go with lossless because you can only hold like 1/4 of the songs on your ipod. And if you are that much of a audio nazi then just listen to the CD or better yet, the SACD

 

[furrycute]

I once tried to rip all my CD collections to 256kbps VBR. I found there was a noticeable difference between the mp3 files and the original wave files. I gave up after a couple of discs. I finally settled on lossless compression, I am using monkey audio.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I almost wonder why one would bother with MP3 at home. Sure, it's useful in the car to keep the number of discs & changes to a minimum, but to tell you the truth, I don't even use a CD changer any more.

 

[Mega2000]

I almost wonder why one would bother with MP3 at home. Sure, it's useful in the car to keep the number of discs & changes to a minimum, but to tell you the truth, I don't even use a CD changer any more.

Come to think of it, I ripped a lot of CDs to mp3 just to have music on my iPod for working out and use in the car. I never really did it for home use. I just use it at home for when I have people over and junk like that. If I am in a music mood I usually listen to the CD or if I am lucky, SACD or DVD-A. I can't remember the last time I sat down and just listened to music for over an hour.

 

[Duffinator]

I almost wonder why one would bother with MP3 at home. Sure, it's useful in the car to keep the number of discs & changes to a minimum, but to tell you the truth, I don't even use a CD changer any more.

I have most of my CD collection ripped as MP3's at 192. I decided on MP3 for compatability reasons not on sound quality. I can't tell a huge difference between MP3's and CD's. I have an iPod but I also have a Hauppauge Media MVP (a mini media server) connecting my PC to my HT. It's capable of delivering Music, Video, and Photos. I use it mainly for listening to music in the other zones in my home. But I've got to say, it's really nice having access to over 3,000 songs through my HT with just a remote. I find myself listening to music a lot more with the MVP than without it, it's been a great way to rediscover my music collection.

 

[Steve1000]

I've got most of my CD collection ripped at around 192 kbps vbr, using itunes, lame, musicmatch, and other mp3 encoders. For a really nice recording sometimes I'll take it up in the 200 to 230 kbps vbr area just as insurance. I found that once I got up around the 192 vbr area, the differences in encoders on normal music diminished (well, to be perfectly honest, to these humble ears it disappeared) and the sound was transparent to me for my purposes (critical music enjoyment, as opposed to critical sound discernment, I suppose). I found that for older recordings (say 1975 and earlier) 192 kbps is almost always overkill. My ears are not the best, but that was my experience, FWIW. Having all my music on both of my computers and my ipod has just been a total blast, my increased enjoyment and appeciation of my music collection has been a revelation.

I have most of my CD collection ripped as MP3's at 192. I decided on MP3 for compatability reasons not on sound quality. I can't tell a huge difference between MP3's and CD's. I have an iPod but I also have a Hauppauge Media MVP (a mini media server) connecting my PC to my HT. It's capable of delivering Music, Video, and Photos. I use it mainly for listening to music in the other zones in my home. But I've got to say, it's really nice having access to over 3,000 songs through my HT with just a remote. I find myself listening to music a lot more with the MVP than without it, it's been a great way to rediscover my music collection.

 

[JoeE SP9]

I experimented with the popular compression schemes and have concluded that for my ears and critical listening I don't want no stinking compreession. As far as background non critical listening goes, MP3 at 256Kbps is the minimum acceptable rate my ears can deal with.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I really don't have much use for MP3 at home. Hard drive prices have fallen thru the floor; you can get 400 GB models for under $300, and the 300 GB sizes are often well under $200. With a couple of large drives, who really needs MP3?

 

[MDS]

You need mp3 for portable devices and streaming over low bandwidth links like 802.11b wireless.

I practice what you preach regarding external hard drives though. I had a 200 GB drive and filled it up with waves from my CDs. Replaced it with a 300 GB drive and copied all the waves from the 200 to 300. When I get that filled, I'll upgrade to a 400 GB. The process will never end as long as I keep buying music, but drives get cheaper and cheaper.

My philosophy is to rip the CDs and save the waves on the external hard drive so I have a digital archive of all my music. I can then transcode the waves to any compressed format I want without ever having to rip the CDs again.

 

[WmAx]

MP3 reality.

Those of you that seem to claim and/or imply that you can hear differences in high bitrate mp3 files when compared to the original PCM data: your claim(s) is(are) not probable, based upon known current research/testing, if using high quality encoders.

I am not calling anyone in this thread a liar(just so that's clear), but I suspect flawed comparisons/tests on the behalf of those that claim such audible difference(s). If a competant encoder(e.gl; lame) is used at a sufficiently high bitrate/mode, then the encoded audio should be transparent in nearly all real-world music samples. [Known problem samples and test clips are another story, and not represenative of normal circumstances.] I base this on the extensive blind testing that has performed by Lame developers and users as can be found on hydrogenaudio.org. My own blind tests support the transparency when using normal music program. Failing to use a valid blinded test protocol or preparing the files for testing may invalidate test results and/or introduce psychological bias.

-Chris

 

[Duffinator]

Those of you that seem to claim and/or imply that you can hear differences in high bitrate mp3 files when compared to the original PCM data: your claim(s) is(are) not probable, based upon known current research/testing, if using high quality encoders.

I am not calling anyone in this thread a liar(just so that's clear), but I suspect flawed comparisons/tests on the behalf of those that claim such audible difference(s). If a competant encoder(e.gl; lame) is used at a sufficiently high bitrate/mode, then the encoded audio should be transparent in nearly all real-world music samples. [Known problem samples and test clips are another story, and not represenative of normal circumstances.] I base this on the extensive blind testing that has performed by Lame developers and users as can be found on hydrogenaudio.org. My own blind tests support the transparency when using normal music program. Failing to use a valid blinded test protocol or preparing the files for testing may invalidate test results and/or introduce psychological bias.

-Chris

I'm glad someone brought this up. I don't have the technical knowledge to argue this point but everything I've read supports this. I picked 192 bitrate as a safety net over 128 just in case. But I can't hear any difference. Maybe it's because I've been to too many rock concerts and night clubs along with all the motorcycle and auto races I've attended or participated in.

So what's "a sufficiently high bitrate"?

 

[MDS]

So what's "a sufficiently high bitrate"?

In my opinion, 192 kbps. On some music there might be a tiny perceptible difference between 192 and 256, but for the most part there is none. I have seen and read alot of the research, dbt's, and forum discussions that WmAx mentions and that coupled with my own experience leads me to agree with him.

Not to stir up the hornet's nest, but I also believe there is very little difference between the 'good' encoders (ie NOT Xing and older encoders of that ilk). I often edit songs ripped from CD (fade-in/out, split or join tracks, etc) and so I use SoundForge for both editing and transcoding to mp3. I believe SF uses the Fraunhoffer encoder. I've compared its results to Lame and I really can't notice any difference, so I just stick with SF and its Fraunhoffer encoder.

Exact Audio Copy + LAME is almost an urban legend on the net as the only way to get bit perfect rips and transparent encoding. I beg to differ on that as well. I've compared EAC to SF and in all cases the rips from each were bit for bit identical. EAC+LAME is a fine way of doing things, but it's not the only way.

 

[Duffinator]

Not to stir up the hornet's nest, but I also believe there is very little difference between the 'good' encoders (ie NOT Xing and older encoders of that ilk). I often edit songs ripped from CD (fade-in/out, split or join tracks, etc) and so I use SoundForge for both editing and transcoding to mp3. I believe SF uses the Fraunhoffer encoder. I've compared its results to Lame and I really can't notice any difference, so I just stick with SF and its Fraunhoffer encoder.

Isn't Fraunhoffer the lab that developed the MP3 and AAC transcoder? From what I recall AAC was developed to correct some "mistakes" in the MP3 code and is available in iTunes. Again from the research I conducted almost two years ago it didn't seem that there would be much of an audio difference from one codec to another although there might be a difference if you looked at the audio graph. But that's getting beyond my technical knowledge or interest.