Question about bitrates for music

2007-08-01 10:44:39

#1

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|7105|Washington, DC

Do high bitrates, like 1014kbps (Apple Lossless format) really make a difference except on the best audio systems? I've recently ripped some CDs in that format, and while the bitrates are nice and big, the files are also gigantic (this 11 minute Metallica song is 90MB). I really don't notice much of a difference on my humble headphones.

So am I just wasting HD space by using lossless? I really just listen to songs on my headphones (Icemat Siberia on the comp, Bose Triport on iPod), and maybe sometimes in the car or on a stereo system. Should I simply use 320kbps AAC?

2007-08-01 10:46:51

#2

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7056|SE London

Through headphones? Yes, you're just wasting space.

2007-08-01 10:48:01

#3

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|7042|NYC / Hamburg

just stick to 320kbps ACC. I can't notice a difference to the actual CD

EDIT: d'oh

Last edited by max (2007-08-01 10:48:27)

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2007-08-01 10:48:58

#4

loonitic: ...is a potty mouth; +286|7010|Valhalla

Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference

2007-08-01 10:54:22

#5

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7130

I'd stick with 192. At first I couldn't really tell the difference between 192 and 128, but it's very obvious after a while. Especially when playing music loud, whether it's on headphones or on regular speakers.

But 1014 is just overkill.

2007-08-01 11:07:50

#6

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober: mmmm...Toasty!; +91|7197|Oregon

if you have good headphones like the ones you do (esp for ipod...those heaphones rock), or a good sound card/speaker setup (logitech z5300 & X-Fi is the best combonation ive seen), then yeah, you'll notice a difference. i do at least. lossless=win.

im also pretty sure cd-audio is considerably more then 192... i just rip all my cds to wav...but with 2TB storage on my server storage is not really an issue....about 200gb of that is music.

Last edited by [TUF]Whiskey_Oktober (2007-08-01 11:08:05)

2007-08-01 11:10:15

#7

Brasso: member; +1,549|7105

You're wasting space. I have the Siberia headphones too, and while they're great for gaming, they're terrible for music.

I use my Creative speakers for music, and they're crystal clear at 128 kb/s.

Last edited by haffeysucks (2007-08-01 11:10:35)

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2007-08-01 11:17:07

#8

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7231|Scotland

128KBPS is already good enough. Anything above 520 is pointless.

2007-08-01 11:19:54

#9

weerdfoo1: Banned; +26|6640|California

Just stick with 128.

I cant tell much difference between 128 and audio files myself.

2007-08-01 11:22:45

#10

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6997|...

loonitic wrote:
Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference

CD's are 320 I do beleive.

Personally I can hear degredation in anything below 192 for music ... voice/audio books I can stand much lower.

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-08-01 11:23:35)

2007-08-01 11:22:53

#11

chittydog: less busy; +586|7310|Kubra, Damn it!

I always go with 192 because I read any differences above 172 (I think) are undetectable to the human ear.

2007-08-01 11:24:55

#12

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6997|...

I think loseless comes into play when ur going to do some editing. Image data and audio data correlate.

2007-08-01 11:26:56

#13

agent146: Member; +127|6862|Jesus Land aka Canada

mtb0minime wrote:
I'd stick with 192. At first I couldn't really tell the difference between 192 and 128, but it's very obvious after a while. Especially when playing music loud, whether it's on headphones or on regular speakers.

But 1014 is just overkill.

ya same 192 and 128 are the "standards" for me. i tried going higher but i could not hear any major difference other then wasting space. going lower...well obviously you will hear differences. ya so arround 128-192 is good.

2007-08-01 11:27:24

#14

mikkel: Member; +383|7076

I can -easily- tell the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps in my $100 headphones, so if you have anything in that price range, 250kbps is a good call.

Of course, it still depends on the music you listen to. If you're just playing mindless generic rock or rap, chances are that you won't at all hear any sort of difference. If you listen to electronica, or other music with a lot of tones and very subtle sounds, it's a night and day difference.

2007-08-01 12:01:25

#15

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|7105|Washington, DC

Alright, I'll stick to 256kbps then. Thanks.

2007-08-01 13:26:23

#16

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|7128

i used to be able to on XP, with a creative audigy 4 soundcard and an icemat sibera headset. On vista, the sound is too shit for bitrate to make any difference, which would be the same for any sound system that isnt more high-end (MP3 players, most stereos, onboard sound, etc.)

2007-08-01 13:31:28

#17

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6863|New York

Unless you have the very high end equipment to utilize this bitrate, don't bother with it. That's the thing that sucks about having one component in a series of components that's much better than the rest. Amazing sound out of shitty speakers will still give you just about the same result as have mediocre sound out of shitty speakers (an example).

Also, I'd recommend 320 to everyone that has their mp3 players connected to a home or car stereo, because there is an IMMENSE difference between a song that's 128 and one that's 320.

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-08-01 13:35:43

#18

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6938|cuntshitlake

chittydog wrote:
I always go with 192 because I read any differences above 172 (I think) are undetectable to the human ear.

You think wrong. I can easily notice up to 320, which I use.

jsnipy wrote:
loonitic wrote:
Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference
CD's are 320 I do beleive.

Personally I can hear degredation in anything below 192 for music ... voice/audio books I can stand much lower.

wikipedia wrote:
By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels).

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2007-08-01 13:40:55

#19

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7056|SE London

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:
if you have good headphones like the ones you do (esp for ipod...those heaphones rock), or a good sound card/speaker setup (logitech z5300 & X-Fi is the best combonation ive seen), then yeah, you'll notice a difference. i do at least. lossless=win.

im also pretty sure cd-audio is considerably more then 192... i just rip all my cds to wav...but with 2TB storage on my server storage is not really an issue....about 200gb of that is music.

Bah - the 5300s aren't very good. Not even digital are they? There's a big jump between them and the Z-5400 and Z-5500 sets (which sound exactly the same but the 5500s go louder). Digital interconnects make such a huge difference to audio quality.

2007-08-01 13:48:08

#20

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7241|Cambridge (UK)

320kbps is more than enough - like everyone else, I can't remember exactly what CD bitrate is, but it's less than or equal to 320kbps.

2007-08-01 13:51:43

#21

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6997|...

DeathUnlimited wrote:
wikipedia wrote:
By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels).

true, as a wave ... 320 is typically considered cd quality in compressed form.

2007-08-01 13:57:23

#22

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7056|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
320kbps is more than enough - like everyone else, I can't remember exactly what CD bitrate is, but it's less than or equal to 320kbps.

You can tell the difference with those audio qualities though.

DTS audio (upto 1500kbps) sounds better than AC3 (448kbps) - but only very slightly (better audio range, especially for LFE). But the fact that the difference between the two is only very slight is mostly accounted for because AC3 utilises more sophisticated compression techniques.

I'm quite fussy and like to get all my films in DTS. I've got a fair bit of music in DTS format too - but it's overkill really (even if you can just about tell the difference).

(I know we're talking about music not films - but it's the same principle, high bitrate audio formats - although being split over a number of channels does have an impact)

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-08-01 14:00:48)

2007-08-01 14:04:32

#23

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6863|New York

Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
320kbps is more than enough - like everyone else, I can't remember exactly what CD bitrate is, but it's less than or equal to 320kbps.
You can tell the difference with those audio qualities though.

DTS audio (upto 1500kbps) sounds better than AC3 (448kbps) - but only very slightly (better audio range, especially for LFE). But the fact that the difference between the two is only very slight is mostly accounted for because AC3 utilises more sophisticated compression techniques.

I'm quite fussy and like to get all my films in DTS. I've got a fair bit of music in DTS format too - but it's overkill really (even if you can just about tell the difference).

(I know we're talking about music not films - but it's the same principle, high bitrate audio formats)

And to further this discussion a bit: PCM uncompressed is the best format you can hope to get. This is only achievable through HDMI I believe. PCM basically encompasses the HD versions of Dolby Digital and DTS, which I think have yet to be utilized by any movies.

As a basic rule of thumb:
PCM > DTS > DD

Although Dolby claims that they compress more efficiently, I've watched the same movie in both formats, and DTS sounded better. I'm a bit of an audio snob too Bertster7, and try to get the maximum performance out of my system.

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-08-01 14:06:12

#24

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6968|N. Ireland

For general media through headphones and speakers etc - anything between 192kb/s and 320kb/s should be fine!

2007-08-01 14:08:25

#25

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7231|Scotland

leetkyle wrote:
For general media through headphones and speakers etc - anything between 192kb/s and 320kb/s should be fine!

Well that fucks me up then. I have shit music quality.

BF2S Forums Question about bitrates for music

loonitic wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

chittydog wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

loonitic wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

Board footer