What is the best MP3 bitrate for good quality with small file size?
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
EasyRaider
Regular
Not much to get, most people are simply clueless.
But I did expect more informed answers from the B3D crowd.
Blazkowicz pretty much covered that. FLAC has much wider support which is gaining, I've never seen any product support or any talk of monkey's audio and others outside of audio forums.
when the material is intended for my home desktops and my PSP i encode in CBR AAC @ 192Kb/s and sometimes ATRAC3 @ 132Kb/s.
when i seek for max player compatibility, i encode in CBR mp3 - usually @ 192Kb/s.
the reason i tend to stick to CBR is that from my experience players tend to have issues with VBR - if there's a compatibility problem then that's usually number one. plus for a long time my PSP's fw could understand only CBR mp3 and atrac.
when i seek for max player compatibility, i encode in CBR mp3 - usually @ 192Kb/s.
the reason i tend to stick to CBR is that from my experience players tend to have issues with VBR - if there's a compatibility problem then that's usually number one. plus for a long time my PSP's fw could understand only CBR mp3 and atrac.
Yes I meant lossy files
...I use wavpack myself...not a big Flac fan anymore (use to be); though by all means it's one of the better lossless compression file formats. I just like the newest (beta) version of wavpack slightly better. And I would also say I can generally tell the difference between mp3's and lossless file formats (though mp3 encoders have gotten a lot better recently).As people have said before you want to use LAME v3.97 and the -V presets. Between 2 and 6 depending on your definition of "small file size" and of course with the vbr new switch on. I personally recommend 4 - 6 for portables and 2 - 3 for PC listening.
If you want to learn about this stuff, troll www.hydrogenaudio.org. This kind of discussion at a forum like this usually brings out a load of misinformation.
If you want to learn about this stuff, troll www.hydrogenaudio.org. This kind of discussion at a forum like this usually brings out a load of misinformation.
Last edited by a moderator:
On the flipside I doubt you would be able to tell the difference if you didn't know what type of audio you were listening to.
CDs(like i've purchased anything recently, haha) are ripped to HDD as FLAC or (lately) Monkey's Audio.
When I play something on my box, I play those original files.
To send to my portable player, I use dbPowerAmp to convert those lossless files into 192 Min 320 Max VBR .mp3 files. LAME codec.
Purchasing stuff from AllOfMP3 is the same thing pretty much; an album I care about I download as FLAC, if not, VBR OGG.
When I play something on my box, I play those original files.
To send to my portable player, I use dbPowerAmp to convert those lossless files into 192 Min 320 Max VBR .mp3 files. LAME codec.
Purchasing stuff from AllOfMP3 is the same thing pretty much; an album I care about I download as FLAC, if not, VBR OGG.
Well, that's how it is for me.
Seriously? You have conducted ABX tests?
Comparing what? I've done double blind comparisons using Foobar's ABXcomparator and shown that 90% of the time I can tell the difference between a FLAC file and a 256kbps MP3 file. The difference depends highly on songs, modern songs (especially pop and rock) are harder to tell because even the CD isnt the highest of quality to start with (literally done to be more radio friendly and sound decent on lower end equipment, removing all of the dynamic range). But on good recording the difference is clear as day.
When getting up to 320kbps MP3 I find that the file size savings, with todays very large hard drives at low prices, to be so unimportant that there's no reason why I shouldnt go with a loss-less format for safe keeping reasons.
Granted I use decently high end headphones (Sennheiser HD580) and above average source and amp (Headroom Total Bithead). Which is why I ask the reason why people cant tell is because of their equipment holding them back.
I only listen mp3 in my car (Sony sound) or on my PC (HK speakers and SB Live), then I can feel the difference between CBR 128 and CBR 192 (sounds better), but cant tell the difference between CBR 192 and higher CBR or good VBR (Level 2) or the original CD.
I did some tests and the difference in file size between LAME CBR 192 and LAME VBR level 2 128~256 or VBR level 2 160~320 is 7% only (VBR is 7% higher average).
I did some tests and the difference in file size between LAME CBR 192 and LAME VBR level 2 128~256 or VBR level 2 160~320 is 7% only (VBR is 7% higher average).
That's the thing, you may be able to tell the difference using high end equipment, which most people don't have. On anything less I don't think it matters.
And therefore my question, is the reason people cant tell the difference because of crap eqiupment.......
ChronoReverse
Newcomer
Frankly, even with halfway decent headphones, it shouldn't be any trouble to distinguish 256kbps and FLAC, ESPECIALLY if it's CBR MP3. Simply put, the way MP3 compresses has some fairly distinct artifacts. That's why there's all these other codecs people try to push all the time.
That said, it usually isn't enough of a difference that the average person would care =/
I was talking about me not being to tell the difference.
Man.. some of you people... ePenis
I was talking about me not being to tell the difference.
Man.. some of you people... ePenis
Sorry, I misunderstood your post.
Similar threads
