THE BITRATE SURVEY

[Seiji 156]

I know that I'd fuck this up, but I prefer 320kbps only for the reason that it sounds MUCH better when filtering out the middle track for doing vocal covers etc

[deathangel 1105]

haha, i totally have no clue. but to be honest i am not a 320 bit-rate fan, to me 192 is sufficient enough in quality.

[*littlelamb 78]

Well I did recognize the 320 file no problem, so I guess that would be my preferred bitrate. VLC player gave away one file due to certain reasons, but I... think I got the other two right as well. I listened with Koss PortaPro headphones though. Do the people who listened with laptop speakers usually listen to music that way? Because I shudder at the thought. I also can't believe someone couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 320, especially if we are talking rock music.

[Zeus 7997]

^ Can you inbox me the reason? I'm curious.

[CAT5 9075]

I put in my vote, but....I forgot to disable the file size column on foobar, so that definitely influenced my vote - kind of a cheat I guess.

However, prior to looking at the file sizes I could only hear a difference in one of the files.

So you win, zesshoku. (_ _)

[Gizorz 24]

Well I did recognize the 320 file no problem, so I guess that would be my preferred bitrate. VLC player gave away one file due to certain reasons, but I... think I got the other two right as well. I listened with Koss PortaPro headphones though. Do the people who listened with laptop speakers usually listen to music that way? Because I shudder at the thought. I also can't believe someone couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 320, especially if we are talking rock music.

I'm a poor student and I can't afford decent speakers :/ I learned to live with it when I started living on my own. It's better than no music at all

[Pandabear 414]

Pssh, noooo idea!

My rule is more like "as long as it doesn't sound bad, or go home"

A decent 128, but preferably 192 is all I ask for! In fact, because 320 and 192 make no difference to me, I usually end up converting 320 rips to 192.

Let's see how all the audiophiles do.

I always downconvert my files too. There is no significant difference for me so there is no point in wasting precious gigabytes.

Ha. I feel/do the same.

Well I did recognize the 320 file no problem, so I guess that would be my preferred bitrate. VLC player gave away one file due to certain reasons, but I... think I got the other two right as well. I listened with Koss PortaPro headphones though. Do the people who listened with laptop speakers usually listen to music that way? Because I shudder at the thought. I also can't believe someone couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 320, especially if we are talking rock music.

I can't tell the difference and I'm a musician. I transcribe music for instruments all the time just by hearing so you know my hearing isn't messed up. Plus I use blocky but awesome BOSE speakers and SHURE studio headphones. I listen to every genre of music but specifically talking about rock music, the overwhelming majority of the time I can't tell the difference between 128/192/320 And if I can, the difference is very very minor. It's not significant enough that I have to have a higher bit rate.

And personally, I think the sound quality of albums isn't really effected by the slandered 128/192/320 bit rate they're ripped in. To me has more to do with the software that was used to rip the album, the equipment you use to listen to it, and the sound production of the album itself. An album with horrible/not so great sound production isn't going to sound better no matter what rate you rip at.

[Zeus 7997]

And personally, I think the sound quality of albums isn't really effected by the slandered 128/192/320 bit rate they're ripped in. To me has more to do with the software that was used to rip the album, the equipment you use to listen to it, and the sound production of the album itself. An album with horrible/not so great sound production isn't going to sound better no matter what rate you rip at.

*clap.gif*

I'm working on something for the download forum that will surface sometime next week and what I just quoted there shows up in there exactly! More people should read this!

[Biopanda 2675]

Using Sennheiser headphones and I was only able to correctly pick out the 320kbps one as the one that sounded best.

As far as my preferences go, I'm usually fine with 128+. If I have a 128 or 192 copy of a cd I like and a better quality version pops up, I'll definitely download that to replace my copy though. I've always ripped my cds at 320 since hard drives are so incredibly cheap per gig(seriously, I've recently been seeing 2TB external drives for $65 with free shipping) that space isn't an issue at all.

[sebbivism 134]

128 vs 320 you can clearly hear the difference, listen to the bass and the drums and compare again.

[*littlelamb 78]

I can't tell the difference and I'm a musician. I transcribe music for instruments all the time just by hearing so you know my hearing isn't messed up. Plus I use blocky but awesome BOSE speakers and SHURE studio headphones. I listen to every genre of music but specifically talking about rock music, the overwhelming majority of the time I can't tell the difference between 128/192/320 And if I can, the difference is very very minor. It's not significant enough that I have to have a higher bit rate.

And personally, I think the sound quality of albums isn't really effected by the slandered 128/192/320 bit rate they're ripped in. To me has more to do with the software that was used to rip the album, the equipment you use to listen to it, and the sound production of the album itself. An album with horrible/not so great sound production isn't going to sound better no matter what rate you rip at.

What does being able to transcribe have to do with sound quality? You can do that from a radio rip upped on Youtube.

I'm sure the software and equipment play a part. I mean, if we're talking the difference between 192 and 320, then it's usually barely audible, and definitely not something I'm gonna be losing sleep over. Though I would opt for 320 if it were possible, since even if it sounds fine as it is, you know there's a chance you're missing out a little. But that depends on the sound production of the album itself, as you said. However, even if the album won't sound crisp even in 320, it doesn't mean it can't sound even worse in 128. Why would you make bad worse? Granted I don't know what kind of albums you're referring to. If it's VK indies recorded in someone's garage or whatever, then no one should listen to those in the first place.

128 sounds flat and/or muddy without fail though, so I can't for the life of me understand how that isn't audible *in rock*. I'm not even an audiophile, well not by conscious choice anyway, just someone who 99.99% of the time listens to music with headphones.

[Zeus 7997]

*littlelamb I have a question for you. Do you consider 320 to be the best format to rip files in and if so why?

[*littlelamb 78]

*littlelamb I have a question for you. Do you consider 320 to be the best format to rip files in and if so why?

I don't know really, since like I said I'm no audiophile, so I don't even know all the formats, let alone their differences. I actully had to Google ACC to remember what it was.

FLAC would be the best audiowise I guess, but highly impractical, so maybe V0?

[Zeus 7997]

You'll understand the reason for my smiley in a few days.

[Pandabear 414]

I can't tell the difference and I'm a musician. I transcribe music for instruments all the time just by hearing so you know my hearing isn't messed up. Plus I use blocky but awesome BOSE speakers and SHURE studio headphones. I listen to every genre of music but specifically talking about rock music, the overwhelming majority of the time I can't tell the difference between 128/192/320 And if I can, the difference is very very minor. It's not significant enough that I have to have a higher bit rate.

And personally, I think the sound quality of albums isn't really effected by the slandered 128/192/320 bit rate they're ripped in. To me has more to do with the software that was used to rip the album, the equipment you use to listen to it, and the sound production of the album itself. An album with horrible/not so great sound production isn't going to sound better no matter what rate you rip at.

What does being able to transcribe have to do with sound quality? You can do that from a radio rip upped on Youtube.

I'm sure the software and equipment play a part. I mean, if we're talking the difference between 192 and 320, then it's usually barely audible, and definitely not something I'm gonna be losing sleep over. Though I would opt for 320 if it were possible, since even if it sounds fine as it is, you know there's a chance you're missing out a little. But that depends on the sound production of the album itself, as you said. However, even if the album won't sound crisp even in 320, it doesn't mean it can't sound even worse in 128. Why would you make bad worse? Granted I don't know what kind of albums you're referring to. If it's VK indies recorded in someone's garage or whatever, then no one should listen to those in the first place.

128 sounds flat and/or muddy without fail though, so I can't for the life of me understand how that isn't audible *in rock*. I'm not even an audiophile, well not by conscious choice anyway, just someone who 99.99% of the time listens to music with headphones.

I mentioned transcribing music in order to point out that I'm not hard of hearing.

And you're correct when you say the difference between 192/320 is barely audible. I can't tell the difference the overwhelming majority of the time, but when I can it is insignificantly miniscule. I don't feel a 320kps rip would make any major improvement or that it somehow makes an album's sound quality automatically godly and above all others. However I also understand people have preferences and that the knowledge of any difference between 192/320kps would be enough for someone to opt for 320kps. Or perhaps the album they're listening to is by their favorite band and they want to listen to it in the best quality. But as I stated before, I can't really tell the difference so 192/128kps is enough for me. Plus 320kps is soo much of a space whore.

As for as 128kps go, again I can't tell the difference. Even in comparison with 320kps and when I can, it is again to me inconsequential. I should state that is when I'm using my software to rip album's. I have downloaded the same albums from different users on the net both in 128kps and one does sound as you say, muddy/flat. While the other has decent sound quality and could pass for 192kps and have little difference between a 320kps rip. In these cases I attribute the drastic change in sound quality to the software used to rip the actual CD. Naturally not everyone uses the same software to rip their albums and there is bound to be software that is superior to others and those that are inferior.

And an albums sound production does play an important role in the finished sound quality. A bad produced album will sound horrible at any bitrate. Low or high. The difference of the sound getting any worse is trivial. Be it a vk indie band, or a rock band with bad sound/mastering engineers. I honestly don't think the majority of people can tell the difference between bit rates or even have the equipment to do so. Hell, I bet if someone ripped a song in 128kps that was made by experienced musicians and studio veterans and then ripped a song in 320 with bad sound production, they'd think the 128kps was 320kps and vice versa.

[Guest]

answer is simple peoplezzz "WAV"

was first and it's still the only way.. no the best way to ripp CD's with the best quality!

no MP3

MP3 is just a smaller file who did trow lot of information out of the WAV file

and just check wikipedia for info about mp3 and other shizzel.. then you know.. about it all.

[Champ213 1858]

I didn't download the test files because personally I don't really care about bitrate. If I want music in it's original quality I buy a CD. Period. And then I listen to it on my stereo.

For everything I listen to on my computer, anything starting from 128k is good enough. I couldn't tell the difference anyway. Plus, since I'm getting it for free I don't think I'm entitled to have it in original quality. I'm glad I have it at all.

[fitear1590 2414]

You'll understand the reason for my smiley in a few days.

Such a devious smile, haha. I'm scurrrred!

[sai 868]

I didn't download the test files because personally I don't really care about bitrate. If I want music in it's original quality I buy a CD. Period. And then I listen to it on my stereo.

For everything I listen to on my computer, anything starting from 128k is good enough. I couldn't tell the difference anyway. Plus, since I'm getting it for free I don't think I'm entitled to have it in original quality. I'm glad I have it at all.

Amen.

[Masamune 72]

Lol, i know for a fact i cant tell the difference, i suck big time.

I always rip mine at 320 though when sharing as if its any lower you get people nagging for a higher rip.

[LIDL 692]

hey, i am getting more confident with my vote,

to see some other people landed theirs on the same option too.

Din't relaize that until i visited back to this topic again now

So what's the result of this?

Still baking in the oven?

[ramrod 108]

when i chose that too, it only had 2 other people voting for it :\

[Zeus 7997]

I'll reveal the results after the poll has ended, which is tomorrow!

[LIDL 692]

woot woot very exciting!

[Zeus 7997]

I've decided that all useful discussion concerning this topic has already been had and that keeping it open much longer was going to bore me quite frankly. So I'm cutting it short one day and closing up the poll. I've got a few words to say about this topic.

The correct choice, picked by only 11 people was "First was V2, second 320, third AAC, fourth transcode." That means that out of the 65 people that answered this poll, only 17% of the people got it right.

One, I'm not surprised by the amount of people that got the question wrong. Anyone that attempted to try and answer the question is either confident of their equipment, their ears or both. I also expected an extremely low number for the correct answer since I KNOW most of the people here don't have the equipment to detect noticeable changes in quality when it comes to music over 192KBPS.

What I am disappointed in would be the lack of response from the crowd I was aiming this towards most: that being the crowd that consistently claim they can hear differences between audio formats of all types and constantly ask for uploads in only slightly higher quality because it makes such a vast difference. Either they voted silently or they avoided this topic like the plague to save face. I did get a very large response from people that understood much more about audio quality than I had initally thought, which was great and fostered much intelligent discussion. I have rewritten parts of my manual to include quotes from some of the members that participated in this study.

The manual can be found here.

Thanks to all the people that have participated!