| Author |
How much quality is enough for MP3 files? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-05-24 05:44:40, kennyUIQ3 wrote:
96 Kbps(radio quality) will do enough for me, 128Kbps is the standard CD quality. if you are not so buffy with audio quality, you can hardly discern the differences between the two.
The claim that 128Kbps is "CD Quality" is rather optimistic to say the least. 320Kbps is what's called "Near CD quality". The only thing you can call "CD Quality" is the uncompressed audio stream ripped digitally off a CD.
|
|
|
rad2905
Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 11
From: Serbia
PM |
I just don't understand the question.
Actually, I do, just, that question is valid if you're encoding from CD, otherwise the quality can only be degraded, not improved.
Re-encoding from 128 to 192 or higher has no effect, since the source is lower quality. So, by re-encoding the lower bitrate file to higher bitrate file, you simply get the fila that takes more space, and has the same quality.
Peace... |
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
128kbps MP3 at 44000Hz is enough for me. |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
i encode all my mp3's in 320 or 256Kbps, but i'd say the lowest you can go to for general listening on the move is 128Kbps at 22khz 
at 128kbps you are basically deleting 90% of the original CD data, and all the sounds it thinks the human ear cant hear anyway. it simply guesses what should fill in the gaps!!!! |
Ranjith
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Saudi Arabia/India,Cochin
PM |
128 or 162....
dont even think of 96!
R
I  ESATO I W1i  T20,T65, P800(2x),K800,Z300,  800, 850 (2x),P1i(with WALKMAN) |
bulti48
Joined: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 173
PM |
Using VBR rather than constant will produce a better sound.
If testing different bitrates then listen to the drums, in particular the high hats, to help measure your preferred standard for encoding.
If you're going through hell - keep going. |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
i use a 'reference' track that i know off by heart and have heard on stereo's worth £10 to HiFi's worth £10,000
also comes in handy when trying out different levels of compression. |
thecell
Joined: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 107
From: Indonesia
PM |
My suggestion, you must convert all your songs to the better compression format song. if u want all your songs playing at 196kbps mp3 quality with less memory used, u can compress it to m4a aac 144kbps, or aac+ 128kbps, or even he-aac 96kbps, i hear the near same quality in my ear. Try it, u can save 20% for aac, 30% for aac+, 40% for he-aac (not same 4 all songs & not a fixed calculation, but can be used for comparison).
before compress, make sure ur phone support the codec, i knew w700 can play aac codec, but i dunno if the other codec too.
ps : pls note that SE phone still can play the unsupported AAC format (AAC+,HEAAC), but it played at bad quality and rough, compare it with PC musics players (winamp etc)
- sorry 4 my bad english - |
xan K
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Republica Dominicana
PM |
VBR (Variable Bit Rate) all the way for me! try to find a good size-quality ratio for your phone storage needs. for my phone I use VBR-5 (0= better quality, 9=smaller size). for my Zen Vision M (30GB) and my PC I use VBR-1.
You'll need CDex for that or any other CD ripper/encoder that supports the LAME MP3 code.
_________________
I will never EVER buy another Sony Ericsson joystick phone Again!!!
[ This Message was edited by: xan K on 2007-05-24 13:55 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-05-24 12:55:47, bulti48 wrote:
Using VBR rather than constant will produce a better sound.
If testing different bitrates then listen to the drums, in particular the high hats, to help measure your preferred standard for encoding.
I agree, VBR is much better than ABR, more consistant quality even in really complex pieces of audio and easier on the ears. But VBR is also 25-50% bigger in file size than ABR. I have been thinking of converting to VBR though I must admit. It's tempting. I'd rather a track in 160VBR than 192Kbps mp3 anyday even if they are the same size.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-05-23 22:22:40, JuanPablo wrote:
Hi all 
I have a question. I have a 2GB Memory Stick Pro Duo and I use it with my W700. But it's nearly full and I want to store more songs 
I've uploaded all my songs in 192 kbps. My question is... is 160 kbps enough? The quality is (almost) the same? Is there a huge difference between 192 and 160 kbps?
I listen to music with the headset (included in my W700, I don't know the name  )
Thanks in advance
[ This Message was edited by: JuanPablo on 2007-05-23 21:22 ]
Which format are you using, MP3 or AAC? With the SE headset (original handsfree or hpm-70), 160Kbps AAC or 192Kbps is probably a good compromise between size and quality. Keep in mind the less compression is used the better ANY headset will sound, unless it's one of those $2 jobbies 
But if you are happy with the SE headsets, you will probably be satisfied with 160Kbps AAC, or even 128Kbps (use your own judgement: listen to a track encoded at both rates back to back. If one doesn't jump out as being much better than go with the smallest one)
|
Hobbs
Joined: Oct 07, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Cape Town,South Africa
PM |
I go with 128kbps.I dont go higher or lower than that. |
Cycovision
Joined: Nov 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM, WWW
|
I have to agree with Batesie here, but here's another interesting thing on the subject...
It depends on what type of music you listen to! For example, a complicated classical piece should be encoded at a high bit rate to ensure that none of the quiet sections or softer instruments become distorted or even left out. Also, the loss of clarity and 'muffling' that occurs with lower bit rates is much more noticible when listening to classical or vocal pieces
Happy Hardcore or Thrash metal, on the other hand, can be encoded at lower bit rates because they typically lack the 'musical detail' of other genres meaning that there's less chance of the track becoming spoiled through encoding. And often, they both deliberatley use distortion anyway so a little more from the encoding process doesn't make much difference!
Give it a try if you don't believe me
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
well said cyco and welcome back....
[addsig] |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
Generally 128Kbps, though I do prefer 160 or 192, I can certainly tell that a lot of data has been lost when listening to a 128kbps MP3, though the equivalent AAC sounds much better, just a shame many devices don't support that format!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
Posted: 2007-05-24 10:24
ESATO
T20,T65, 
800, 
