| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 25097 | 2002-09-26 00:16:00 | MP3 conversion rates | Greg S (201) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 83233 | 2002-09-26 00:16:00 | I'm converting some music into MP3, and wondered what the best conversion rate would be, in other's opinions. The defacto seems to be 128kbps, but I wonder if that's because many free players/rippers only support that rate? Can others tell the diffs between 128 and say 360? I personally find little discernible diffs, and wonder if it's worth it for the larger file size. Cheerz. |
Greg S (201) | ||
| 83234 | 2002-09-26 00:39:00 | I personally find that there is very little difference. Although, if played through some impressively large speakers with lots of bass there is a discernable difference. For home use though, I think 128 is fine. Veale |
Veale (536) | ||
| 83235 | 2002-09-26 01:25:00 | it depends on which codec you are useing as well. i find 128 crap, even on cheapo computer speakers. when played through a home stereo its even more noticeable. 160 is bearable. 320 is nice but far to large to keep on the pc. it all comes down to quality vers size. i've redone all of my cd's to ogg which gives very good quality with a resonable file size. it also pays to use a good ripper. any faults on the disk tend to be noticable when converted to mp3. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83236 | 2002-09-26 01:45:00 | I'm with Tweaki, I dont like 128 bit anymore. At first it was OK as thats about all you could get but I think theres definately more treble with lower bits rates. Im prepared to wait that extra time for downloads to get say 192+ b/r. | parry (27) | ||
| 83237 | 2002-09-26 02:54:00 | Well i have a twist in comparison to what people are saying here. ok 128 is good if you are recording from earlier CD's i.e. songs that don't have many instruments in them. eg, Cat Stevens, The carpenters etc However if its a Pop song or some of thes newer songs that use alot of electronica, then your best recording 192 as you will get better clarrity in both the treble and bass responses. However 192 are naturally a lot larger. OGG is good if your computer is fast enough to convert in realtime for playback. Do a test. Its the same with WMA. They are smaller in size however playback uses more resources and if you have a slow computer you will notice more jutter or pauses in your playback. |
roofus (483) | ||
| 83238 | 2002-09-26 03:24:00 | ok i hope you have your flame suit on ;-) music is music . if anything some of the less dynamic music can use less kb/s without sounding worse . however if you use VBR (variable bit rate) mp3 it dosn't really matter as the codec will adjust the bitrate to suit the music . as far as OGG goes, i've had it running fine on 100mhz pc's so you would have to have one real slow machine for it not to run . ever noticed how a lot of mp3's are done as 'joint stereo' and not stereo . crikey why don't we just dynamicly compress them as well, make em sound like a radio broadcast . can't really see the point of buying cd's if you are going to listen to poor quality rips . you might as well just record them off them off the radio station . |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83239 | 2002-09-26 03:44:00 | Sumed up, 192Kbps is prolly best for most purposes, with not too loarge file size either, but good enough quality for a lot of listening. | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 83240 | 2002-09-26 03:49:00 | Tweake i don't dispute that OGG can be used . However i do point out that it does use more resources . Do you believe this to be a fair statement? |
roofus (483) | ||
| 83241 | 2002-09-26 04:14:00 | well i'm listening to a collection of ogg's and mp3's at the mo and there hasn't been the slightest change in resourses used at all. no difference between mp3 and ogg at all. tho that may depend on player. i'm useing winamp 2.81. | tweak'e (174) | ||
| 83242 | 2002-09-26 05:40:00 | Thanks heaps for the feedback and opinions folks. And because I download songs occasionally as well, they're all good points. Cheerz |
Greg S (201) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||