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?
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?
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?
Through headphones? Yes, you're just wasting space.
just stick to 320kbps ACC. I can't notice a difference to the actual CD
EDIT: d'oh
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.
Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference
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.
But 1014 is just overkill.
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.
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)
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.
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"
128KBPS is already good enough. Anything above 520 is pointless.
Just stick with 128.
I cant tell much difference between 128 and audio files myself.
I cant tell much difference between 128 and audio files myself.
CD's are 320 I do beleive.loonitic wrote:
Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference
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)
I always go with 192 because I read any differences above 172 (I think) are undetectable to the human ear.
I think loseless comes into play when ur going to do some editing. Image data and audio data correlate.
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.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.
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.
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.
Alright, I'll stick to 256kbps then. Thanks.
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.)

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.
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
You think wrong. I can easily notice up to 320, which I use.chittydog wrote:
I always go with 192 because I read any differences above 172 (I think) are undetectable to the human ear.
jsnipy wrote:
CD's are 320 I do beleive.loonitic wrote:
Aren’t CD's only 192kbps (or is 256 I cant remember) You probably wont even notice a difference
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
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.[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.
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.
true, as a wave ... 320 is typically considered cd quality in compressed form.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).
You can tell the difference with those audio qualities though.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.
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)
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.Bertster7 wrote:
You can tell the difference with those audio qualities though.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.
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)
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
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.leetkyle wrote:
For general media through headphones and speakers etc - anything between 192kb/s and 320kb/s should be fine!