• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

mp3 ripping.. 128 vs. 192?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Well the first phase(cleaning up tags) of my mp3 collection is almost completely, I'm now about to move on to the 2nd phase where I'll go ahead and rip all my CD's to the mp3 format.... so which do I do? 128kbps or 192kbps?

Give me your audiophile opinions....
 
Lambtron said:
192. At least. 128 is hissy and sounds like shit. I'd go 256 if you can spare the space...
Click to expand...

HD space isn't an issue and I have a 30GB MP3 player... again so space isn't too much of an issue... how much bigger will the files be at 256, vs 192?
 
DarienA said:
HD space isn't an issue and I have a 30GB MP3 player... again so space isn't too much of an issue... how much bigger will the files be at 256, vs 192?
Click to expand...
Not sure as far as a comparison goes, but an album ~70 minutes long is ~130mb in 256.
 
Search for "MP3" or "collection". i'm sure there's a couple of threads with relevant settings in The OT.

Go for 192 at least. If you decide to go for 256, you may as well go with one of the lossless codecs, or 320 CBR MP3s if you must. Some may say going that high is overkill, but the better your equipment (receiver, speakers) gets, the more you'll notice the effect of lossy compression. The advantage of lossless is that you're listening to what's basically the actual CD, and if another abd better lossy format comes along, you can transcode it to that without worrying about losing quality from going to one lossy format to another.
 
The Faceless Master said:
VBR

--alt-preset standard
Click to expand...

Thank you. If you didn't post that, I would've. Best quality/size ratio for MP3 if you're using the LAME encoder (I use LAME 3.96.1). Generally filesizes are around CBR 192 level (maybe a tad more), but there's actually leeway for the bitsize to increase/decrease if needed.

(It's not called Preset Standard for nothing, you know.)

A good forum to read up about this stuff is the Hydrogen Audio Forums.
 
I'm 320. All the way.

128 sounds absolutely awful. 192 is okay, but I get really distracted by any sort of out of place noises in music. I really prefer lossless, but don't really feel like using that much space.
 
morbidaza said:
I'm 320. All the way.

128 sounds absolutely awful. 192 is okay, but I get really distracted by any sort of out of place noises in music. I really prefer lossless, but don't really feel like using that much space.
Click to expand...

320 is a huge waste of bits (and filesize). You're using up way too many bits in quiet song parts. VBR will shrink the bitrate down during those quieter parts. You'll save yourself some hard drive space if you use VBR.


If you must keep bitrates as high as possible, then do VBR encoding using this:

--alt-preset extreme

The bitrate still varies depending on the song part, but overall the bitrate is a higher average than --alt-preset standard is.
 
If disk space isnt an issue and your mp3 player supports it, why not just go lossless? You'll appreciate it more with every source upgrade you make. Probably the most futureproof way of archiving your music at the moment.
 
VBR all the way. I've ripped thousands of CD's into the VBR format, it's a perfect trade off between sound quality and size.
 
Ah so that's way some of my MP3's when I look at the bitrate while they are playing in winamp it constantly jumps all over the place... because they are encoded VBR.... thanks I'll do that.
 
CBR 256+


Dynamics people!!! Dynamics of the music piece will improve with higher bit-rate settings, a must for audiophiles
 
Depends on what the purpose is, i'll generally use 192, but i'll use 320 when listening to specific albums - generally i've found that with better produced albums the differences between 320 and 192 is really noticeable:- e.g.

With Teeth (NIN) and the last U2 album sound shit at 192 in comparison to 320 IMO.
 
lame --alt-preset-standard is by far the most superior setting for mp3s at a reasonable bitrate. NEVER use 192/256/320, use VBR instead (variable bitrate) if you want the best quality. What VBR does is allocate bits according to need, for example if you have a part of the song that requires 320kbps, it does that, and if it's just silence, it will use the minimum number of bits.

VBR -> Constant Quality, Variable Bitrate
CBR -> Constant Bitrate, Variable Quality.
 
thorns said:
lame --alt-preset-standard is by far the most superior setting for mp3s at a reasonable bitrate. NEVER use 192/256/320, use VBR instead (variable bitrate) if you want the best quality. What VBR does is allocate bits according to need, for example if you have a part of the song that requires 320kbps, it does that, and if it's just silence, it will use the minimum number of bits.
Click to expand...

So is that what I'm seeing as I described in my previous post? Some of my MP3's I can see the bitrate constantly jumping around while they are playing in winamp? That's a VBR encoded MP3?

EDIT: Ok so reading at the site lame is the encoder... but what actual software would you recommend I use it with?
 
Why are you ripping them? If it's not for a portable player and you're not bothered about disk space, you might want to think about ripping to a lossless codec such as flac or ape.

Try ripping the same track with a few different settings to see what you find most enjoyable to listen to.

Also, your bitrate in winamp does jump about because it's a vbr.

CDex has a variety of encoders built in, including lame.
 
8bit said:
Why are you ripping them? If it's not for a portable player and you're not bothered about disk space, you might want to think about ripping to a lossless codec such as flac or ape.

Try ripping the same track with a few different settings to see what you find most enjoyable to listen to.

Also, your bitrate in winamp does jump about because it's a vbr.

CDex has a variety of encoders built in, including lame.
Click to expand...

I'm ripping to store them permanently on my home machine, but then I'll also want to use them on my MP3 player. thanks for the software recommendation.
 
hy are you doing mp3? mp3 is the worst by far, no matter what bitrate.

if you have equipment that supports it (or plan on getting equipment that supports it), do AAC or even better AAC-HE.

If you equipment doesn't support AAC, I would even almost say WMA. WMA quality is pretty damn close to AAC (at least WMA10), the only downside is their styupid user license which is why you don't see WMA transcoders (you can't legally convert WMA to any other format natively. you have to burn to CDA and then recode).

but yeah, there is really no reason to be using MP3 these days.

and cbr is a huge waste of space and doesn't sound any better.
 
it's been pretty well established in the HA forums that WMA is no where near MP3 in terms of quality once the bitrate pushes up past 128. there has been relatively zero audio tweaks from microsoft with regards to WMA since it's inception, meanwhile MP3 (LAME) has been tweaked constantly. i believe the only thing added was WMA PRO, which no hardware player supports.

for lower bitrate streaming AAC-HE and MP3 PRO are essentially tied, then OGG, WMA, and MP3 last.

i second most everyone here and recommend LAME MP3s with the -aps switch as it offers the most flexibility for portable players.
 
borghe said:
hy are you doing mp3? mp3 is the worst by far, no matter what bitrate.

if you have equipment that supports it (or plan on getting equipment that supports it), do AAC or even better AAC-HE.

If you equipment doesn't support AAC, I would even almost say WMA. WMA quality is pretty damn close to AAC (at least WMA10), the only downside is their styupid user license which is why you don't see WMA transcoders (you can't legally convert WMA to any other format natively. you have to burn to CDA and then recode).

but yeah, there is really no reason to be using MP3 these days.

and cbr is a huge waste of space and doesn't sound any better.
Click to expand...

Since the format issue has been brought up, I'll add Ogg Vorbis to the discussion. It has been proven to be comparable (if not better) than AAC, isn't encumbered by patents, and is supported by an increasing number of hardware players, as well as most software players. The Wikipedia article has more information, including a rudimentary list of hardware that supports it, and links to listing tests.
 
the only reason I left ogg out was because of the player aspect. while ogg is being supported by more players, it's existing and announced support is way behind AAC, which are both way behind WMA and MP3. OGG is a great format, but a portable that can play it gives you fewer choices and will likely cost a little more.

Also expect all next-gen home video formats to support AAC music early on (it is included in the spec standards), whereas again with ogg, who knows if or when that support would come.

as for WMA, I really think there is a lot of bias against it because it's Microsoft and because of their ridiculous licensing. While the format lags behind the other three (AAC, MP3Pro, OGG), let's not forget that it is more compatible than all of them (MP3Pro generally sounds like shit on non-Pro capable players) AND has a lossless codec that maintains the same level of compatibility. I would almost go so far as to say it is the best of the highly compatible containers/codecs.

but for me, AAC is compatible enough with the high quality. OGG has always been interesting, but I can't play it on my DVD player or portable, so it's never been an option.
 
Thanks folks for all the suggestions I'm probably going to stick with the mp3 format in the near future... it's easier for me to give mp3 files to the missus (instead of another format) and not have to worry about where is going to use it and whether she has a compatbile device, as well the car I bought 2 days ago has the ability to play mp3 cd's so.....

But thanks again, I'll definitely be giving cdex with the LAME encoder a run.
 
ParkPace said:
320 is a huge waste of bits (and filesize). You're using up way too many bits in quiet song parts. VBR will shrink the bitrate down during those quieter parts. You'll save yourself some hard drive space if you use VBR.


If you must keep bitrates as high as possible, then do VBR encoding using this:

--alt-preset extreme

The bitrate still varies depending on the song part, but overall the bitrate is a higher average than --alt-preset standard is.
Click to expand...

This man speaks the truth.
 
-alt-preset extreme
-alt-preset standard


What does this mean? I've seen it referenced a few times here... are these command line instructions for a command line version of LAME?
 
Yeah. Although EAC adds one of those lines if you ask for it, and if you aren't hooking your CD ripper into the conversion process, just use Razorlame instead.
 
24 kbps BABY! I have 8000 albums on my ipod shuffle!






192 variable is the sweet spot, although the last couple of albums I ripped at 160 cause I was running out of room on my karma =(
 
I've got over 6000 songs on my 30 gig player and 90% of the songs are VBR <3 Problem is I've got 1 gig left :(


*orders 60GB Zen Xtra*
 
Two questions:

What exactly is mp3 pro? If I use nero to try and rip a CD, it gives me the option to use mp3 pro, and the bitrates are very low for it.

Also, does anyone have a comparison of the same song ripped to AAC - AAC-HE, and mp3? I never really hear a difference with my music, regardless of what type it is.
 
My recommedation is to rip the CD's with EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and THEN encode them to MP3 with LAME.

See here: Radified: Guide to Ripping MP3's

I've encoded CD's @: 128, 160, 192, 256 and 320. My suggestion is somewhere between 256 and 320kbps. I have pretty decent home speakers, Paradigm, and bit-rate does make a difference IMO. MP3's tend to truncate the high and low frequencies (see here); and I can hear quality differences in different bit rates.

The quality of your speakers will certainly make a difference in what you can hear; but even if one has crappy speakers right now, it doesn't mean that they always will have subpar speakers.

That's MY audiophile opinion, and NO I don't have golden ears. ;-P
 
192.

Of course, --alt-preset-standard and --alt-preset-extreme in the LAME MP3 encoder > all.

Darien, I would suggest downloading CDex, replacing the lame dll with 3.96.1 (found at a page called rarewares - do a google search), and use preset standard or extreme.
 
My previous questions still stand, but I've got a new one now.

I'm using CDex, and I want to set it up to get the best quality out of my mp3s.

What's the difference between MPEG I, MPEG II, and MPEG II.5?

Also, what's ABR? And what's with the different VBR levels? It that how many passes it takes at the song?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

KCD2 vs F1
6
354
Catphish replied
China vs Japan
2 3 4
150
2K
NeededSleep replied
Female Giants vs Male Dwarfs
34
578
jason10mm replied
Zuffa Boxing 01 | Walsh vs Ocampo
0
89
Kacho replied
Should I get Android tablet vs iPad?
14
514
Meicyn replied
Top Bottom