|
Post by Tales from The Mighty I on May 6, 2016 18:21:11 GMT -5
I've been annoying myself with this for the past two weeks. So since Soundcloud, YouTube and various streaming places I like natively have 128kbps on MP3, I've gone with that for my new default go-to music file and audio quality. Q: What audio quality and music file do you prefer for your music?
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on May 7, 2016 2:35:27 GMT -5
I can't usually tell the difference between a good quality CBR 320KB MP3 conversion of a song and a wav or flac conversion.
I can definitely hear the poor quality in a 128KB MP3 - especially on headphones.
So 320KB MP3 is fine by me - I'll settle for a 256KB if it's a rare track and that's the best I can find. Anything lower than that and I'd really be hunting around for a better version.
|
|
|
Post by arthurmorgan on May 7, 2016 13:07:46 GMT -5
Honestly I don't care that much about audio quality. It's nice to have a great sound and to be able to hear all the little details but I mainly care about the idea and the song itself. I can enjoy a great song in any format. It doesn't matter if it's MP3, FLAC or whatever
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 16:34:36 GMT -5
I rip all my cd's in WAV-format with Exact Audio Copy and put them on my external hard disk (1TB). Then I use iTunes to convert them to MP3 320 kb/s because otherwise I can't have all my cd's on my iPod classic.
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Nose on May 8, 2016 13:04:32 GMT -5
I rip all my music in 320 kbps mp3. I never keep flac because of storage issues (flac tends to be around 300% larger in file size compared to mp3, and while the difference is noticeable, it doesn't bother me). I always try to hunt for better quality but I can be happy with 256
|
|
|
Post by Jessica on May 8, 2016 16:15:27 GMT -5
I have my converter set to "keep quality" for FLAC to MP3 and I import CDs at 320 kbps AAC. I have stuff all over the place in general though because of YouTube rips, bootlegs I got long ago, and the digital copies I buy.
|
|
|
Post by LightsOffInside on May 8, 2016 17:12:42 GMT -5
Since about 2008 I've kept all my music at 256kbps AAC (and NOT VBR). For me, it's the most optimum audio quality without sacrificing lots of storage space.
|
|
|
Post by Tales from The Mighty I on May 9, 2016 1:58:26 GMT -5
A simple audio test will help any individual determine that they cannot hear anything above or below 16khz. That's huge. So when I saw that MP3 @ 128kbps was in fact 16khz (judging by my research and endless tests with a program of mine), I went with it. Some MP3 files at 128kbps do not in fact, sound muddy.
Some files in fact sound like a CD.
My point: you'll understand once you do your own research on audio quality and why it will be useless to keep audio quality at "320kbps" or "256kbps AAC" or "lossless FLAC"...
I better stop here for I may get to be sounding like a grumpy dude.
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on May 9, 2016 7:42:39 GMT -5
A simple audio test will help any individual determine that they cannot hear anything above or below 16khz. That's huge. So when I saw that MP3 @ 128kbps was in fact 16khz (judging by my research and endless tests with a program of mine), I went with it. Some MP3 files at 128kbps do not in fact, sound muddy. Some files in fact sound like a CD. My point: you'll understand once you do your own research on audio quality and why it will be useless to keep audio quality at "320kbps" or "256kbps AAC" or "lossless FLAC"... I better stop here for I may get to be sounding like a grumpy dude. if you cant hear the differece between FLAC & 128kb, thats on your hearing...
|
|
|
Post by carlober on May 9, 2016 8:44:51 GMT -5
Whenever I can I rip/download albums in FLAC or WAV quality and then convert them to mp3 for personal use. I keep FLACs for archival purposes of the stuff I like the most. I usually select VBR0 mp3 as it's virtually undistinguishable from a 320 kbps file *, but the size is smaller. Variable Bit Rate encoding allows to reduce the file size in a intelligent way, i.e. when it's not needed. Tales from The Mighty I , if you're not an audio geek I think 192kbps is the best compromise. It's massively better than 128 kbps and with cheap speakers/earphones you can't really tell the difference from a 256/320 file. 128 is really too compressed, the sound gets muddy, drums and bass blend together, cymbals and distorted guitars lose their brightness. I never download 128 kbps tracks unless they're the only choice available (bootlegs, rare tracks, etc). *I don't trust my ears for that, a quick way to do it is by comparing the frequency spectra of the two files. 95% of the times the difference in frequency content between VBR0 and 320 is completely negligible.
|
|
|
Post by davidjay on May 9, 2016 11:26:25 GMT -5
Just as an aside to this topic - if you OOPS a stereo MP3, that will highlight the high-frequency artefacts introduced by lossy encoding.
Often these swishing / swirling sounds are well masked by competing frequencies in the recording, but when you listen to the sides component of the stereo signal in isolation they tend to stand out a lot more. Just another way you can check the quality of a compressed audio file.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 10, 2016 4:38:17 GMT -5
I converted my whole CD collection in Apple lossLess a few years ago and now i rip every new record like that as well There's enough space now on computers or iphone (mine has 128gigs) to finally enjoy the music as it's supposed to be enjoyed. 320 is the minimum for compressed music, if i can find it. For older tracks, it depends on what i can find... But at home, i have two Bower & Wilkins high quality speakers (A5 and MM1), it would be a shame not to use them at full potential. And believe me, as an audiophile, there's a huge difference between lossless and lower compression. Every day when i listen to records i havent heard in a long time, i hear new stuff, and that's gold. 320 is fine though.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 10, 2016 4:40:29 GMT -5
A simple audio test will help any individual determine that they cannot hear anything above or below 16khz. That's huge. So when I saw that MP3 @ 128kbps was in fact 16khz (judging by my research and endless tests with a program of mine), I went with it. Some MP3 files at 128kbps do not in fact, sound muddy. Some files in fact sound like a CD. My point: you'll understand once you do your own research on audio quality and why it will be useless to keep audio quality at "320kbps" or "256kbps AAC" or "lossless FLAC"... I better stop here for I may get to be sounding like a grumpy dude. if you cant hear the differece between FLAC & 128kb, thats on your hearing... Yeah, WTF dude, you can clearly hear the difference. It's like saying a toyota and ferarri are the same. Or saying One Direction is the new Oasis. Many details and sounds are lost on compression, it's not just a kHz problem. Some people don't have good ears it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 7:41:38 GMT -5
www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/Couldn't tell the difference tbh (my headphones were a tenner from Robert Dyas though ) I have heard a lot of music though that does sound better with higher bit rates, so I guess it depends on the song and how well it ends up sounding under compression Edit : Never really stressed out too much over bit rates, but just checked through my music and it looks like most of it is at least 192kbps, and half of them are at 320kbps just from default settings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 8:30:10 GMT -5
This conversation makes me laugh coming from Oasis fans. Seeing as Definitely Maybe was recorded to leave in distortion and hiss and fuzz which is exactly what you get from compressed audio formats.
Arguing over audio quality is akin to arguing over which doughnut is best. Even the worst doughnut is still better than no doughnut! If the tune is good then it will be good in any format.
I personally can't get behind elitism in any instance.
Have a glorious day all!
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on May 10, 2016 8:50:39 GMT -5
This conversation makes me laugh coming from Oasis fans. Seeing as Definitely Maybe was recorded to leave in distortion and hiss and fuzz which is exactly what you get from compressed audio formats. Arguing over audio quality is akin to arguing over which doughnut is best. Even the worst doughnut is still better than no doughnut! If the tune is good then it will be good in any format. I personally can't get behind elitism in any instance. Have a glorious day all! we (oasis fans) listen to more than just 'definitely maybe'. and obviously 128kb is better than no song at all, but thats not the topic. ironically, your stance on elitism comes across somewhat elitist...
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 11, 2016 3:38:01 GMT -5
This conversation makes me laugh coming from Oasis fans. Seeing as Definitely Maybe was recorded to leave in distortion and hiss and fuzz which is exactly what you get from compressed audio formats. Arguing over audio quality is akin to arguing over which doughnut is best. Even the worst doughnut is still better than no doughnut! If the tune is good then it will be good in any format. I personally can't get behind elitism in any instance. Have a glorious day all! we (oasis fans) listen to more than just 'definitely maybe'. and obviously 128kb is better than no song at all, but thats not the topic. ironically, your stance on elitism comes across somewhat elitist... Exactly. I listen to Oasis like 1% of my music time. DM, MG and BHN were poorly recorded, but they still sound better uncompressed (coz they're already compressed as fuck) and on quality speakers. So yeah, that's an irrelavant argument. Although i would add you need to have good speakers, a good sound card to properly play uncompressed music. It's not just about the file. On the other hand, some 128 file will sound great on quality equipement, i give you that, but not all of them... and some parts will still be lost on compression.
|
|
|
Post by Tales from The Mighty I on May 12, 2016 2:38:38 GMT -5
Judging by some of you and your preferences, I'm thinking I should go with 320kbps. Though I am still undecided. "Audiophiles" have indeed ruined the fun for me, and I don't have bad ears by the way...
I also apologize if I pissed some of you off, that was not at all the intention.
I simply cannot make up my mind.
But...
320kbps MP3 it is!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 5:36:16 GMT -5
My favourite music is all FLAC, I just love being able to pick out all of the details and hearing everything in crystal clear quality. I think I own the entire discography of my 4 favourite bands all in FLAC: Oasis, The Stone Roses, The La's and The Beatles.
Most other music I just stick with 320kbps MP3, it's not really that bad.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on May 12, 2016 10:35:25 GMT -5
I can clearly hear the difference between lossless and compressed formats. I do however doubt that most people would be able to hear the difference between CD quality and HD formats unless the HD track was remixed for the HD release.
Big fan of the Tidal streaming service which gives me CD quality tunes that sound great on my audiophile system.
Next time you have the chance to do an A / B test between an mp3 and a CD or HD file just listen to the clarity in the cymbals, one of the easier instruments to single out in a Rock N Roll track...
|
|
|
Post by eva on May 12, 2016 10:56:21 GMT -5
it depends on what kind of headphones you're using as well. I can spot a difference sometimes, and I love to keep my favourite music lossless. but I usually listen to it on the run, walking somewhere, while travelling, etc so 192kbps or 256kbps is good enough for my phone and it's not a waste of space.
|
|
|
Post by Flatulence Panic on May 12, 2016 16:11:01 GMT -5
Vinyl BABY!!
|
|
|
Post by glider on May 12, 2016 17:19:58 GMT -5
AAC at peak bitrate quality (500) is far better than MP3 at 320kbps. Not only are there less artifacts in the waveform, but it shaves off at least several megabytes of the file size. It's a good reason Apple uses it for iTunes, being able to hold much more songs based around this advantage.
As for lossless, FLAC is the way to go in pretty much any situation: less file size than WAV, and no additional audible compression is present. Biggest debate right now is the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit lossless audio, and I haven't been to tell the difference with my Sennheisers or Logitech speakers.
|
|