mostly 192... thats really all you need otherwise its a waste of hd space
Poster
BT Rep: +35
mostly 192... thats really all you need otherwise its a waste of hd space
Poster
It seems that by far and away most of us like 192 bit rates, as a good compromise between quality and file size.
So please can you all share more 192 bit songs on Ares.
Regards
Digby
BANNED
192 for me as well
ZOMG!! Torrent PLSSS
BT Rep: +16
192 and higher...also VBR
I rip everything using LAME --preset standard which results in a file anywhere from 170 to 220 Kbps (variable). This seems to be the accepted convention of most ripping groups now, makes more sense than a CBR where silence is recorded at the same bitrate as the chorus of rock song. Also my ears aren't good enough to distinguish anything higher than 192 (or --preset extreme), I've recently been doing extensive testing on this as I was ripping a vast quantity of CDs to replace the old 128 kbps versions of albums I had.
Truth be told, only using a better sound system was I able to tell the difference between 128 and my new rips (I generally use cheap earphones whilst using my PC) - so was it all worth it? :/
Doesn't using 320 kbps undermine the point of having a vast digital compressed library? At that bitrate you're only compressing by 2/3 at best, may has well just image the CD to your hard drive!! (same applies with FLAC)
kwasheni rejtash
Human ear can hear up to 20 kHz, CD-quality is at 128 kbps
For .MP3 the best for human ear would be: 128kbps 17 kHz, thats proven.
U can't hear the difference between 128kbps and up to 1000kbps (you are not that kind of an animal, u can't hear a dog whistle). When u get older or if u live in places where there is much noise around u, u hear even less good. The only difference u hear is the difference in some concert played louder or with more aggressive sound.
When u convert from lossless audio like .FLAC to lossy audio like .MP3 u can't convert it back to lossless, known fact, but most ppl that worship lossless don't know it and still covert it back and say it sounds better (in their dumb head). When FLAC files are around 40 MB each song, its in my opinion just good for leechers with limiters (my experience). And i have some FLAC that sound better than MP3 and some MP3 that sounds better than FLAC, depends on quality of concert and quality of instruments, loudness..etc and not kbps or kHz. I vote 128
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Just to clarify: kbps is a measurement of bitrate in digital media, kHz is a measurement of frequency (in this case audio spectrum). The two are entirely different units of measure, describing entirely different things.Originally Posted by limesqueezer
Not sure what you mean about "CD Quality", either. Last time I checked, a standard audio CD's bitrate is 1411kbps.
You seem to be under the impression that kbps is somehow directly related to kHz. It isn't. The amount of compression (kbps) used in mp3 files has little to do with the maximum audio bandwidth (kHz). (A brief description can be found here.)
I'd like to see your source for that.
kwasheni rejtash
I didn't say nothing you just said i did, i more like think u are mixing wav with mp3. case closed. I know many private servers where ppl have to share lossless files. And than they go download some mp3 files and make em into FLAC, nobody knows which are now those that sound better and which are those that don't(fakes).
CD-quality is at 128 kbps
http://tech.yahoo.com/gd/understandi...g-sound/153236
http://www.realnetworks.com/products...realaudio.html
http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx...&ArticleID=389
Human ear can hear up to 20 kHz
http://www.readb4buy.com/Home_Theater_buying_guide.aspx
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml
What is a kHz
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.c...212441,00.html
I didn't mean to mix wav with mp3 - you referred to a 128 bitrate as being "CD quality". I just posted the real bitrate of an audio CD for comparison.
I looked at those links, here's what I found:
- The Yahoo link says "The standard for near-CD quality is 128 Kbps"
Is "near-CD quality" the same as CD quality?
- The real audio site recommends bitrates greater than 128 for "the highest quality listening experience for consumer music services".
- The VIA link: "The lowest quality, 128 Kbps is considered to be near CD quality".
Again - the qualifier "near CD quality" is used, meaning not CD quality.
I didn't dispute that 20kHz is the highest frequency that an adult human can hear, just that this fact has nothing to do with the difference in quality between different mp3 bitrates. You were mixing up kbps with kHz several times in your first post.
If you have no problem with low quality mp3 files and can't hear the difference, that's fine. There are a lot of people who can hear the difference, and chose to go with a higher bitrate. Fifteen years as a post-production engineer has taught me to listen to audio critically, which has probably ruined me for 128kbps files - I can't stand listening to them. Same goes for some older Fraunhofer-encoded files at 160kbps.
I suppose if you're listening to your music through plastic PC speakers - or cheap headphones - none of this really makes any difference anyway. But the topic here is about what bitrates we encode at, and why. You're saying that nobody can hear the difference, and backing up your opinion with technical information that you clearly don't understand.
You can say "case closed" all you want - it doesn't make it so.
kwasheni rejtash
quote my ballz ignorant
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks