wma 128kbps -> not good?

[Eisenhower]

I ripped all of my cd's without looking at the bitrate, and I checked, and it is set at WMA 128 kbps, where most people use mp3 192 kbps. Is it worth re-ripping in this format, or wait until I can get a loseless player, or what? I did a test with a boards of canada CD (electronic), one with 128 wma, and one with 192 mp3, I couldn't really hear a difference at all.

 

[iancraig10]

Depends what you're listening on. You may regret it later if you buy very analytical headphones.

I ended up re-ripping many CD's once I upgraded my headphones.

 

[Lisa]

Before you start reripping do some research for the best software to use and do some listening test to find out what sounds best to you.

 

[Eisenhower]

Generally though, do people tend to stray away from anything under 192 kbps?

 

[iancraig10]

It's a case of try it and see. I use 192 as a lowish rate. 320 for complex classical music. Sometimes 160 if I'm pushed for space and 128 for playing on a nasty car stereo.

On good headphones, you detect the lower rates and the effects of compression.

 

[periurban]

It will depend on the sonic complexity of the material you are encoding. Classical music sounds quite good encoded at 128kb, but thrash metal less so. There's a lot more going on sonically with distorted guitars than with orchestral sounds.

Given that classical recordings are often held up as a kind of benchmark for recording quality, that might seem counter intuitive. But you can check it out yourself if you encode some Beethoven and Metallica using variable bit rate (via something like EAC/LAME). The Beethoven files will be smaller, and the LAME readout will show how very little gets encoded at higher bit rates.

It's not only the frequency range that is an issue, amplitude comes into it too. Modern rock recordings are quite saturated, which will also push up the required bit rate.

Distorted guitars encoded at 128kb or less have a distinct ringing sound around the treble region, the auditory equivalent of the visual artefacts you find around sharp edges in a JPEG or moving planes on a MPEG. The effect canm also be heard on cymbals when there are distorted guitars present. It sounds like an extra harmonic.

Some people can't hear it, but others can once alerted to it. You can do a simple test by putting a 128kb file and a VBR file of the same song into an audio editor like Audition. You'll be able to see the differences in the waveform, and if you cut between the two files in the multitrack editor you'll probably hear it.

If you still don't hear it then encode everything at 128kb, and laugh at those of us cursed with the ears of bats!

 

[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban It will depend on the sonic complexity of the material you are encoding.

Exactly what I said .... '320 for complex classical music.'

I also use 320 for what I regard as complex rock stuff. Sometimes I encode at a lowish rate and just listen on some decent headphones and up the rate if I detect any nasties.

I can't get on with 128 though. It's just too compressed for a lot of stuff. I must have bats ears too.

 

[Febs]

The other thing to consider is that VBR will give you higher quality at a given filesize/bitrate than will CBR. If you want to stay in the range of 128kbps because of space limitations, you would be better off using something like LAME 3.96.1 -V 5 rather than using 128kbps. V5 files will average somewhere around 133kbps, but will use up to 192kbps (or maybe even higher, I don't remember off the top of my head) for frames that require it.

Likewise, LAME --alt-preset standard (also known as -V 2 in version 3.96.1) will provide files that average somewhere around roughly 190-205kbps and thus be similar in size to a 192kbps CBR file. However, the encoder will use frames of up to 320kbps as necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban It will depend on the sonic complexity of the material you are encoding. Classical music sounds quite good encoded at 128kb, but thrash metal less so. There's a lot more going on sonically with distorted guitars than with orchestral sounds.

Well, I'm not sure about that. Orchestral music typically will have substantially more content in both the higher and lower extremes of the spectrum than distorted guitars. Guitar amps typically only have a frequency response of up to something like 5kHz, while the harmonics of the higher notes on a violin will go well beyond that. Admittedly, there is more to what is "going on sonically" than just frequency response, but still, I'm not sure that you can really categorically state that X bitrate is OK for this genre, but Y bitrate is necessary for that genre. It's a very subjective decision.

 

[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs Orchestral music typically will have substantially more content in both the higher and lower extremes of the spectrum than distorted guitars. Guitar amps typically only have a frequency response of up to something like 5kHz, while the harmonics of the higher notes on a violin will go well beyond that.

I also tend to listen to the softer sounds and acoustic effects with orchestral music. There is more of an environment to a great deal of acoustic music which can also get interfered with at lower bit rates.

Actually, I don't know if it's my set up, but on really loud whacks from bass drums in Rock stuff, I sometimes get the feeling that the middle part of the ooomph is being sucked out. The initial attack is there but the body of the sound is missing. (My bat ears again)

 

[AndyKatz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pope.on.a.rope I ripped all of my cd's without looking at the bitrate, and I checked, and it is set at WMA 128 kbps, where most people use mp3 192 kbps. Is it worth re-ripping in this format, or wait until I can get a loseless player, or what? I did a test with a boards of canada CD (electronic), one with 128 wma, and one with 192 mp3, I couldn't really hear a difference at all.

Bear in mind that WMA's produce higher quality files at lower bitrates than mp3's. While they may not be twice as good (ie., 128 kbps wma = 256 kbps mp3), I think a 128 wma would easily match the performance of a 192 mp3.

Of course I'm still experimenting with my own files. Generally I try to rip at 240 - 355 wma VBR, especially for my karma, which is stationary. For the mobile, a 5 gig Carbon, I'll go 155 - 240 wma.

Andy Katz

 

[Eisenhower]

alright, I'll just have to expiriment. I just lose/break CD's way more than most people do, so Im paranoid about losing my music and being stuck with 128 kbps.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyKatz I think a 128 wma would easily match the performance of a 192 mp3.

It really depends on the MP3 encoder (perhaps some older Blade?), but if we're talking WMA standard (assume since we're in a portable forum) 128 WMA hasn't beaten even 128 LAME MP3 on any test I've seen. Generally Ogg Vorbis, AAC and LAME MP3 do better by most peoples ears. Trust your own of course, but generally unless in love with WMP (or don't like LAMEs slow encoding speed), there's really nothing to recommend WMA standard over the other options out there. Take it down to 96 kbps or below and maybe. Still Vorbis and maybe AAC would likely outperform.

 

[Eisenhower]

Im using whichever encoder is on creative mediasource

, I guess I have some reading up to do...

 

[Jam_Master_J]

128 kbps sounds quite bad to me for WMA and mp3. 128 on ogg-vorbis is listenable for casual listening. For serious listening I use flac or 256kbps+ vorbis/lame mp3.

 

[blessingx]

Pope you may want to glance at the results of this test. It's but one (and there are others that at least partially disagree), but since 128 kbps is discussed here thought you may find it useful. Always trust your own years though. Couldn't find out the encoder for Media Source, but you may want to glance at this list for LAME encoding software.