Best MP3 bitrate

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Acetyldehyde, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. Acetyldehyde

    Acetyldehyde Guest

    What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances file size
    to quality?

    I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images to
    JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?
    Acetyldehyde, Feb 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Acetyldehyde

    Worm Guest

    "Acetyldehyde" <> wrote in message
    news:a1z_b.28128$...
    > What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances file

    size
    > to quality?
    >
    > I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images

    to
    > JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?


    I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    generally use something higher.

    Worm
    Worm, Feb 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Acetyldehyde

    Lebowski Guest

    "Worm" <> wrote in message
    news:403ad5d6$...
    > "Acetyldehyde" <> wrote in message
    > news:a1z_b.28128$...
    > > What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances file

    > size
    > > to quality?
    > >
    > > I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images

    > to
    > > JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?

    >
    > I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    > between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    > generally use something higher.
    >
    > Worm
    >
    >


    Yep 192 for me! :)
    Lebowski, Feb 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Acetyldehyde

    Lennier Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:16:58 +1300, Worm wrote:

    > I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    > between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    > generally use something higher.


    Those playing "through high-end stereos" would use CDs purchased in a
    store - full PCM RedBook audio.


    Lennier

    --
    "When dealing with the Religious Right one should remember that 'truth'
    is not a part of the rules of their game."
    Lennier, Feb 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Acetyldehyde

    GraB Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:53:27 +1300, "Acetyldehyde"
    <> wrote:

    >What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances file size
    >to quality?
    >
    >I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images to
    >JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?
    >


    160 - 192. Reduce file size (around a meg on average) by using VBS
    (variable bit rate). Quality also affected by other settings and
    codec. In CDEX, with Lame codec, you can select q=0 Very High
    Quality. It takes a bit longer to encode but supposedly does a better
    job.
    GraB, Feb 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Worm wrote:
    >>I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images

    >
    > to
    >
    >>JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?

    >
    >
    > I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    > between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    > generally use something higher.


    Most you find available on the p2p networks is 128, and often ripped with errors
    amd all.

    Even at 192, the difference is still there sometimes, anything I rip myself I
    rip the whole CD to a single wav, compress it with flac, and then edit the
    cuesheet to have the new filename. bit for bit accuracy in about 3-400 megs per
    cd, with the ability to write an exact copy if needed.
    Richard Malcolm-Smith, Feb 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Acetyldehyde

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:53:27 +1300, "Acetyldehyde"
    <> wrote:

    >What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances file size
    >to quality?
    >
    >I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting images to
    >JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?


    192kbps is the sweetspot. A lot of Kiwi's use 128kbps, but for anyone
    that cares it sounds like shit, especially on alt.rock music. Just
    make sure you use a good codec, such as lame. A shit codec @ 192kbps
    might give a poorer result than a good codec @ 128kbps.

    The warez scene (where they are typically fussy as they want to be the
    best) seems to be drifting towards variable bitrate at the moment. I'm
    still not convinced that this is a good thing.
    Craig Shore, Feb 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Acetyldehyde

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Lebowski wrote:
    > "Worm" <> wrote in message
    > news:403ad5d6$...
    >> "Acetyldehyde" <> wrote in message
    >> news:a1z_b.28128$...
    >>> What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances
    >>> file size to quality?
    >>>
    >>> I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting
    >>> images to JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?

    >>
    >> I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    >> between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    >> generally use something higher.
    >>
    >> Worm
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yep 192 for me! :)


    160kb/s for me, I don't have big HDDs and I find (on my admitedly less than
    state-of-the-art) stereo they sound fine. 128 sucks.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Feb 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Acetyldehyde

    ~misfit~ Guest

    GraB wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:53:27 +1300, "Acetyldehyde"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> What is the generally accepted best bitrate for MP3 that balances
    >> file size to quality?
    >>
    >> I understand that 20% compression (or 1/5) is best for converting
    >> images to JPG. Is there an MP3 equivalent?
    >>

    >
    > 160 - 192. Reduce file size (around a meg on average) by using VBS
    > (variable bit rate). Quality also affected by other settings and
    > codec. In CDEX, with Lame codec, you can select q=0 Very High
    > Quality. It takes a bit longer to encode but supposedly does a better
    > job.


    I use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) with the Lame plug-in and get excellent
    results.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Feb 24, 2004
    #9
  10. > > I'd think that most people (esp if downloading over dialup) would use
    > > between 160 or 192kbit. Those playing through high-end stereos would
    > > generally use something higher.

    >
    > Those playing "through high-end stereos" would use CDs purchased in a
    > store - full PCM RedBook audio.
    >
    >
    > Lennier
    >


    High quality MP3 + a good sound card does an ok job. Nothing really seems
    to compare to DVD Audio at 192KHz/24bit though :)

    Steve
    Stephen Williams, Feb 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Acetyldehyde

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    Craig Shore <> wrote:
    >
    >The warez scene (where they are typically fussy as they want to be the
    >best) seems to be drifting towards variable bitrate at the moment. I'm
    >still not convinced that this is a good thing.


    I'm convinced. I've used LAME for years, since 3.86. I did extensive tests
    and settled on VBR at LAME's quality=2 setting. This results in files about
    10% larger than 128K CBR.

    I wrote a utility that displays in real time the instantaneous bitrate as
    the file plays. It's quite educational to watch, it peaks to 320K quite
    often. The peaks don't occur on "loud" passages as you would expect. Rather,
    they tend to occur on transients. This makes sense considering the
    psychoacoustic masking principle. Sustained loud passages provide plenty of
    "cover" for sounds that can then be left out, whereas transients "stand
    alone" and don't cover anything up, so it all has to be encoded.

    It follows from this that transients would suffer the most when encoding at
    128K CBR, and this matches my listening tests. It's most obvious to me on
    piano and percussion.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    software and decent hardware support."
    Don Hills, Feb 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Acetyldehyde

    Brendan Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:28:35 -0800, cOKe wrote:

    > I Use lame to rip to both flac and vbr (192-224) mp3 for my Rio Karma (even
    > though it can play flac files) I use a great app called Mareo that rips
    > using EAC to flac and mp3 at the same time! The idea of being able to encode
    > to a other standard such as ogg at a later time appeals to me!


    I actually use .ogg nowadays whenever possible. It has much higher quality
    and is open source. You can downcode them to mp3 if you have to for your
    player - or if you are smart - you just get ones that does .ogg.

    --

    .... Brendan

    Politics is the showbiz of industry.

    Note: All comments are copyright 25/02/2004 1:02:24 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my reccollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Feb 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Acetyldehyde

    Lebowski Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:ghbwolgdxxon$...
    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:28:35 -0800, cOKe wrote:
    >
    > > I Use lame to rip to both flac and vbr (192-224) mp3 for my Rio Karma

    (even
    > > though it can play flac files) I use a great app called Mareo that rips
    > > using EAC to flac and mp3 at the same time! The idea of being able to

    encode
    > > to a other standard such as ogg at a later time appeals to me!

    >
    > I actually use .ogg nowadays whenever possible. It has much higher quality
    > and is open source. You can downcode them to mp3 if you have to for your
    > player - or if you are smart - you just get ones that does .ogg.
    >


    Which portable players / home stereo brands currently support ogg? If I
    can't play them on my portable, then it's not a very smart idea at all to
    encode to ogg.
    Lebowski, Feb 25, 2004
    #13
  14. Acetyldehyde

    Brendan Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:33:20 +1300, Lebowski wrote:

    > Which portable players / home stereo brands currently support ogg? If I
    > can't play them on my portable, then it's not a very smart idea at all to
    > encode to ogg.


    Use google to find out. They exist.

    --

    .... Brendan

    PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

    Note: All comments are copyright 25/02/2004 10:12:42 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my reccollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Feb 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Acetyldehyde

    Lebowski Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:tqz7dtee6zdo$...
    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:33:20 +1300, Lebowski wrote:
    >
    > > Which portable players / home stereo brands currently support ogg? If I
    > > can't play them on my portable, then it's not a very smart idea at all

    to
    > > encode to ogg.

    >
    > Use google to find out. They exist.



    No time for Google at the moment, but I want to be able to walk into Noel
    Leeming or The Warehouse or Farmers / Dick Smith and pick one up no bother
    at all, like my current Panasonic portable that I got from The Warehouse
    (parallel import deal). All I was asking was "are they reputable well-known
    brands"?

    >
    > --
    >
    > ... Brendan
    >
    > PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a

    single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce
    >
    > Note: All comments are copyright 25/02/2004 10:12:42 p.m., and are opinion

    only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my
    reccollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Lebowski, Feb 25, 2004
    #15
  16. Acetyldehyde

    cOKe Guest

    "Don Hills" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Craig Shore <> wrote:
    > >
    > >The warez scene (where they are typically fussy as they want to be the
    > >best) seems to be drifting towards variable bitrate at the moment. I'm
    > >still not convinced that this is a good thing.

    >
    > I'm convinced. I've used LAME for years, since 3.86. I did extensive tests
    > and settled on VBR at LAME's quality=2 setting. This results in files

    about
    > 10% larger than 128K CBR.
    >
    > I wrote a utility that displays in real time the instantaneous bitrate as
    > the file plays. It's quite educational to watch, it peaks to 320K quite
    > often. The peaks don't occur on "loud" passages as you would expect.

    Rather,
    > they tend to occur on transients. This makes sense considering the
    > psychoacoustic masking principle. Sustained loud passages provide plenty

    of
    > "cover" for sounds that can then be left out, whereas transients "stand
    > alone" and don't cover anything up, so it all has to be encoded.
    >
    > It follows from this that transients would suffer the most when encoding

    at
    > 128K CBR, and this matches my listening tests. It's most obvious to me on
    > piano and percussion.
    >
    > --
    > Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    > "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    > national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    > software and decent hardware support."


    I Use lame to rip to both flac and vbr (192-224) mp3 for my Rio Karma (even
    though it can play flac files) I use a great app called Mareo that rips
    using EAC to flac and mp3 at the same time! The idea of being able to encode
    to a other standard such as ogg at a later time appeals to me!

    cOKe
    cOKe, Feb 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Acetyldehyde

    harry Guest

    Lebowski wrote:
    > "Brendan" <> wrote in
    > message news:ghbwolgdxxon$...
    >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:28:35 -0800, cOKe wrote:
    >>
    >>> I Use lame to rip to both flac and vbr (192-224) mp3 for my Rio
    >>> Karma (even though it can play flac files) I use a great app called
    >>> Mareo that rips using EAC to flac and mp3 at the same time! The
    >>> idea of being able to encode to a other standard such as ogg at a
    >>> later time appeals to me!

    >>
    >> I actually use .ogg nowadays whenever possible. It has much higher
    >> quality and is open source. You can downcode them to mp3 if you have
    >> to for your player - or if you are smart - you just get ones that
    >> does .ogg.
    >>

    >
    > Which portable players / home stereo brands currently support ogg? If
    > I can't play them on my portable, then it's not a very smart idea at
    > all to encode to ogg.


    The smart idea is to encode at the best quality variable bitrate when you
    rip your CDS then re-encode to suit your portable device or stream.
    Iriver devices support ogg http://www.iriver.com/index.asp, but I suspect
    that your reason for asking is to try and start some flame by claiming that
    support in portable one-chip players makes mp3 superior, it doesn't, it
    makes the players inferior.
    harry, Feb 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Acetyldehyde

    Brendan Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:07 +1300, Lebowski wrote:

    > No time for Google at the moment, but I want to be able to walk into Noel
    > Leeming or The Warehouse or Farmers / Dick Smith and pick one up no bother
    > at all, like my current Panasonic portable that I got from The Warehouse
    > (parallel import deal). All I was asking was "are they reputable well-known
    > brands"?


    Think so. Haven't looked at them for 6 months so I cannot say who has them.
    You'll have to put up with mp3 I guess.


    --

    .... Brendan

    "Dare to be naive." -- Richard Buckminster Fuller

    Note: All comments are copyright 26/02/2004 12:47:07 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Feb 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Acetyldehyde

    Brendan Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:20:29 -0800, cOKe wrote:

    > Rio Karma supports ogg also flac, wma, mp3 etc the reason I don't use ogg
    > for my Rio Karma is because it uses 50% more battery power!! and with a
    > 20gig H/D I just make the file size for mp3 a bit bigger!!


    Interesting. How much does wma use ?

    --

    .... Brendan

    "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result." -- Winston Churchill

    Note: All comments are copyright 26/02/2004 6:06:04 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Feb 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Acetyldehyde

    Lebowski Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:y2yqorc0rhyc$...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:07 +1300, Lebowski wrote:
    >
    > > No time for Google at the moment, but I want to be able to walk into

    Noel
    > > Leeming or The Warehouse or Farmers / Dick Smith and pick one up no

    bother
    > > at all, like my current Panasonic portable that I got from The Warehouse
    > > (parallel import deal). All I was asking was "are they reputable

    well-known
    > > brands"?

    >
    > Think so. Haven't looked at them for 6 months so I cannot say who has

    them.
    > You'll have to put up with mp3 I guess.
    >
    >


    I actually do encode with ogg; several of my cds have been backed up with
    EAC + ogg vorbis, but if I want to hear some tunes at work on my portable, I
    have to re-rip the cds to mp3. My Panasonic plays wma files as well
    (drm...uggggh), but doesn't recognise ogg. I guess the point I was driving
    at in my last post was "can ogg vorbis break into the mass market rather
    than the niche market" and one day be a common format on all home stereos,
    portables and standalone dvd players etc?

    My guess is that mp3 will remain the audio compression king as it is the
    format millions across the world have been accustomed with, and thus have
    shared their folders of mp3s. Ogg IMO have the same uphill battle as the
    "paid" formats aac and wma in overhauling the popular format.

    The issues over the "sound" of an mp3 as others have posted is quite
    interesting...people argue that they don't sound as good on a top hi-fi
    system. Well, that's where you should have your original cd playing instead.
    Once you compress audio, you have proposed a willingness to compromise -
    just like in the 80s and 90s, people were happy with hissy c90 min blank
    tapes; mp3s are the "convenience" format of today. If you want top-notch
    hi-fi, listen to your original cd. If you want to hear a good tune for
    something to hum in the background, an mp3 provides excellent convenience.
    So does an ogg file. In the end, it probably doesn't matter which format is
    *better*, because we all know the best quality is uncompressed PCM audio.
    Lebowski, Feb 26, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bigfred

    bitrate

    Bigfred, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,571
    BooBoo
    Feb 27, 2004
  2. ABS

    bitrate for napster

    ABS, Sep 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    896
  3. Jay Stewart

    Re: Bitrate on Star Trek series DVDs

    Jay Stewart, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    385
    Jay Stewart
    Aug 12, 2003
  4. Aphelion

    Best Buy Riddick... Bitrate Killer?

    Aphelion, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    777
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    Nov 20, 2004
  5. music-fan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,289
    music-fan
    Dec 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page