[AudioPhobe]

I've been experimenting with both MP3 and WMA using VBR. When I set either (using WMP10 or RealPlayer) for ~192 I'm getting tracks with bitrates as high as 300+. My PDA player DSP software won't even read it. So with a lowered spec, I'm getting tracks at 160-260 on the same album.

With my Ety's in, I can definitely hear more detail --even on an airplane-- than at my old bitrates (128 max) with all the music I listen to. (In truth lots of albums not updated yet still sound fine at lower levels). But for the life of me I can't decide which format is giving me the best quality per bit. I get a slightly better compression rate with WMA, but better tagging with MP3.

Also, I'm getting my music from Rhapsody, then burning CDs and ripping back to my hard disk. Am I getting less quality that way than if I was buying jewel case versions?

I know nothing. Any advice?

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism cbr, abr, 128 kbps, 160 kbps, 192 kbps, 256 kbps, 320 kbps, 384 kbps..... I am looking to download some music and have the above options, I downloaded one in abr 192 kbps and it sounded about right, is there any need to go higher?

I pretty much use 192 for rock and blues, and higher rates (256) for jazz and classical.

 

[wnewport]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I pretty much use 192 for rock and blues, and higher rates (256) for jazz and classical.

Anything below 192 mp3 sounds like crap to me. Anything over 256 AAC, I can't tell the difference. So in between 192-256 would be the sweet spot.

The best I have heard is OGG from foobar, but that is too inconvient to bother with for me.

 

[sTisTi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioPhobe Also, I'm getting my music from Rhapsody, then burning CDs and ripping back to my hard disk. Am I getting less quality that way than if I was buying jewel case versions? I know nothing. Any advice?

The music from Rhapsody is lossily compressed, similar to MP3. If you re-rip, you just end up with the same lossy quality than the original files. If you encode these again to MP3 or WMA, you lose even more quality, because they are lossily compressed for the second time. I don't know which bitrate Rhapsody uses, but I personally would never spend money for lossily compressed files with DRM - buying the CD is not much more expensive (if at all - e.g. buying used CDs), and you have perfect lossless quality and no playback/copying restrictions (except for copy protected CDs, of course, but these usually can be easily ripped if you know how to

).
As for MP3 vs. WMA: If you use MP3, your files can be played back on every portable MP3 player and every software player in existence. The same cannot be said for WMA, so this is something else to consider. If you use the LAME MP3 encoder with the recommended settings (e.g. "--preset standard" for ~192 kbps VBR files), it is as good or better as WMA at the same bitrate.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ojnihs I like to keep it at 224 kbps or above, anything lower doesn't seem to sit very well with me...

I agree! 192 is slightly too low, so I go for the next one up.

 

[kramer5150]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I pretty much use 192 for rock and blues, and higher rates (256) for jazz and classical.

x2

 

[Cjattwood]

I use EAC @ LAME VRB Alt Preset Standard, seems to produce nice sounding mp3's. Of course, I'm not looking for the BEST quality there is, I go straight to CD for that.

 

[AudioPhobe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTisTi The music from Rhapsody is lossily compressed, similar to MP3.

Thanks for the advice. I suspected as much. Rhapsody has been a great way to discover and rediscover more music than I ever would buy, but it's a big tradeoff. As for LAME MP3, I'll consider starting over with my whole collection, but I've already maxed out my month-old microdrive with my existing shelf.

 

[AudioPhobe]

Can you guys recommend your preferred LAME encoder for Windows XP?

 

[Febs]

3.97b2

 

[thrawn86]

eac --> lame --> alt preset standard

The day I have enough money in equipment to tell the difference in cds and APS will be a sad day indeed.

 

[kwitel]

I think the answer to this question boils down to the amount of space you have.
If I had a 200GB Drive on my laptop and I was listening to my music through my stereo via this laptop id have everything at the highest rate possible. Furthermore, if I owned a 60 or 80gb MP3 player id prob set everything at around the mid 200's.
Being that I am VERY space conscious, I find 192 to be the optimal mark when compromising between SQ and space.
I will concur with what many others have said though, classical and jazz get more space in my drive than the other genres.
So: Regular, run of the mill cds from basic rockand pop genres...192 id say is best.
Classical and Jazz albums where detail is paramount get into the mid 2's.
Rare, old recordings (early Sinatra, Bach, Chopin, etc.) they go as high as possible. Their sub-quality recordings warrant the higher rates.

 

[Hellacious D]

All this info is really helpful, but it'd be great if someone made a sticky on exactly how to rip cd's to your comp for the best sound quality and what the best programs were to do it with. Or what to do to make your stuff sound better after downloading it from a P2P at a low bit rate. I just don't quite understand at what times in the converting process your files lose quality. If you continue to re-convert a song to different bit rates on your computer, does it lose quality? For instance, would it make a difference to encode from 128 straight to 320 versus encoding from 128 to 192 to 256 to 320? How much sound quality can be added if you start with a 128 kbps recording? If it's converted to 320, will it help that much? It'd be sweet if there was a sticky that answered all of that. I'd also like to know how atrac3plus ranks with flac encoding.

 

[coolshot]

i havent bought a CD in years, and since joining head-fi like 3 weeks ago, im paying for it. All these crap 128 kb mp3s laying around from free napster days. in my defense some of this stuff is really hard to obtain like unsigned local artists. Im thinking about updating my library with more legit sound. However theres no way im going to buy an entire CD for only 1 or 2 songs then spend hrs ripping them to lossless or flac or whatever. Does anyone know they best quality that online music stores like itunes have?

 

[sTisTi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacious D All this info is really helpful, but it'd be great if someone made a sticky on exactly how to rip cd's to your comp for the best sound quality and what the best programs were to do it with. Or what to do to make your stuff sound better after downloading it from a P2P at a low bit rate. I just don't quite understand at what times in the converting process your files lose quality. If you continue to re-convert a song to different bit rates on your computer, does it lose quality? For instance, would it make a difference to encode from 128 straight to 320 versus encoding from 128 to 192 to 256 to 320? How much sound quality can be added if you start with a 128 kbps recording? If it's converted to 320, will it help that much? It'd be sweet if there was a sticky that answered all of that. I'd also like to know how atrac3plus ranks with flac encoding.

If a file is encoded to MP3 (or WMA, AAC...) there is nothing whatsoever you can do to make it better sounding - the process is lossy, i.e. a certain amount of data has been discarded to make the file smaller. If you re-encode (also to higher bitrates), you lose even more data, as the process is again lossy. It's like making the copy of a copy of a copy with a photocopier.
Atrac3Plus is also lossy and does not have a good reputation with regard to sound quality. In addition, it is a proprietary format and can only be used with Sony software/hardware AFAIK.
FLAC is something entirely different - it is a "lossless" codec, i.e. you lose no data, i.e. the FLAC files will be bit for bit identical to the audio CD. It's like ZIP/RAR, but only for audio. FLAC usually saves around 50% space compared to the original uncompressed data.