mkdevo

bump

SubZero

I don't know why people bother playing mp3's thru their hi-fi...even "high" bitrates sound completely gimp. I only settle for mp3 if it's something that i simply can't get otherwise. All of my mixing gear is in my gameroom. I'm running my mixer through a QSC RMX-1450 and a pair of JBL MP-215's. Comparing the cd to mp3 is simply embarrassing. I have a Nexus 21 (Altern-8) 12" that has punishing bass, and the copy I have on vinyl absolutely smokes the 256k mp3 of the same track.
Jon

Ergyu

320 unless I am just downloading a quickie off Kazaa. I usually don't download music, I just encode my own cd's but if it's something that I just want to hear real quick, I don't really care.

the aftermath

128 minimum. Prefer 192 and above though.

Penny Lane

I just want to be the English major butting in and saying there's nothing wrong with your sentence.

The next time anyone gives you ***** about ending a sentence with a preposition, send them to me.

the narrator

usually at 128 or 192

mvc

Well, the best setting for MP3's is probably max vbr, but if that's not available, at least 192k. Though if I'm encoding a CD myself, I always use MusePack now.

Mister Beefhead

If you think that, I think that either a), something is very wrong somewhere in the mp3 playback chain of your system, b), the mp3 was encoded using an inferior program, or c), you're fooling yourself. I challenge you to have someone blind test you between a properly encoded high bitrate mp3 and the original cd. I've done such tests on a couple of self proclaimed audiophiles and their answers were completely random.

Has there ever been a doccumented case of someone being able to tell the difference between a cd and a properly encoded 320kbps mp3?

CapRockBrewingCo.

160-192.

heyitsDAVER

I encode at 192, but for downloaded stuff 128+

Chad

Same here.

SubZero

No offense, but the reason that *YOU* can't tell the difference is most likely in *YOUR* hi-fi setup. I've tested this with mp3s from just about every source. I'm running JBL MPro series cabinets through a 30-band Rane Mojo EQ and a Pro series QSC amp that can push 1400 watts. All using Monster Cable with gold balanced XLR and Speakon connections. I basically have a nightclub in my gameroom. It makes my friend's $6000 home theater sound like a boom box. The difference between the mp3 and cd (or vinyl for that matter) is so glaring I dare you to tell me that it sounds the same.
Jon

Mister Beefhead

You don't have to dare me; I already told you you'll find it sounds the same. I simply invite you to test yourself (or rather, to have a friend test you).

I'm not trying to put down you or your system, but I firmly believe what I said. And if, like I said, the problem is in your signal chain or in your encoding, then I'm glad to possibly help improve your listining expierence.

Xanager

That's what I do, and it sounds great to me!

SubZero

Help my listening experience? That is borderline hilarious... I have yet to find someone that doesn't nearly crap their pants when they hear my system. No offense, but you have the most fouled up logic I've ever read. Not only have I tested this at home, I've done it at my bro's Guitar Center store with ALL of the amps and speakers on. We're talking 10's of thousands of watts on (6) 18" subs. I can play 3 signals at once through the mixer making it easy to listen to the mp3, the vinyl and the cd of the same track *at the same time*. There IS NO question. My computer is coming out of my sound card thru pro Monster Cable, so your ramblings about my signal chain make as much sense as the rest of your argument. MP3 is BY DEFINITION a lossy format. On a good setup this should be painfully obvious. However, your lack of noticing the difference obviously says more about your setup than it does about mine.
Also, my brother is a whiz at audio mastering and has an international record deal on the largest electronic record label in America, perhaps he could improve YOUR listening experience...?

Dacoops3

128 is my minimum for downloading music MP3's unless I don't have a choice.

bhome83

so i have a lot of songs that are 128kbps that ive bought from itunes, but was curious, is there a huge difference in ripping a song at 192kbps or 320kbps? would i even be able to tell the diff. using regular ipod ear buds? if i upgraded to more expensive earbuds/headphones could i tell the diff? thanks guys!

Rubix

i suggest you rip with eac in secure mode and encode using lame version 3.97 final using the "-V 2 --vbr-new" command line. it is a variable bitrate.

i don't know if you will be able to tell the difference, that's something you have to compare for yourself. even if you can't notice any difference though, you should still use vbr, just try "-V 5 --vbr-new" instead which yields a ~128kbps quality, but will still be better than regular 128kbps cbr. "-V 2" is ~192kbps vbr by the way.

anyway, read the hydrogenaudio forums for more info.

fiver

I encode all of my mp3's using eac or dbpoweramp's alt-preset-standard mode which is also a variable bit rate encoding method. It really depends on where you are listening to these mp3's. On computer speakers, you probably won't hear much difference as most computer speakers are not high end. However, I can definitely hear a huge difference in my car. I can't listen to 128kps in my car, the distortion at high end frequency ranges (think electric guitar solos) is terrible.

alt-preset-standard is the best compromise between size and quality.

Michael

benedict

I've merged several threads on this topic as I'm not sure that we need too much technical/software stuff here on Music Talk, especially given that it is discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseam on Tech Talk.

Best Encoding Rate for MP3?