-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
mp3 ripping.. 128 vs. 192?
- Thread starter DarienA
- Start date
- Status
RaymondCarver
Member
I look at it this way: if someone wants to make a horrible movie they should go right ahead. Maybe someone will profit off of it.
I never rip below 320, and I used iTunes for all my ripping and archiving.
I use Winamp for playing audio.
I can't show you the difference, but I stress to you high bit rates by posting this 320 so it'll stick in your psyche
:
I never rip below 320, and I used iTunes for all my ripping and archiving.
I use Winamp for playing audio.
I can't show you the difference, but I stress to you high bit rates by posting this 320 so it'll stick in your psyche
:
UltraMarioMan
Member
256
RaymondCarver said:I look at it this way: if someone wants to make a horrible movie they should go right ahead. Maybe someone will profit off of it.
I never rip below 320, and I used iTunes for all my ripping and archiving.
I use Winamp for playing audio.
I can't show you the difference, but I stress to you high bit rates by posting this 320 so it'll stick in your psyche
:
Too bad that everything I have read says that the itunes encoder isn't up to snuff. Use LAME it's where it's at.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
RaymondCarver said:I look at it this way: if someone wants to make a horrible movie they should go right ahead. Maybe someone will profit off of it.
I never rip below 320, and I used iTunes for all my ripping and archiving.
I use Winamp for playing audio.
I can't show you the difference, but I stress to you high bit rates by posting this 320 so it'll stick in your psyche
:
Isn't using itunes for quality rips kinda.....well oxymoronic? (I've heard)
RaymondCarver
Member
An iTunes rip sounds better than versions you can illegally download of your media.
What are this LAME alternative and other that you speak of?
What are this LAME alternative and other that you speak of?
borghe said:
Because clearly, silence and constant tones sound better when described by 320kbits. Duh.
Btw, for reference (since someone sort of asked), with constant bitrate encoding you can figure out exactly how large a file will be in megabytes by multiplying the kbps number by 8192*(number of seconds) or by 137*(number of minutes).
256 or 320 can be considered superior if filesize is not an issue.
Lossless audio is 1411kbps. I don't buy the whole "this frame is ideal @ 160kbps, this frame is ideal @ 320kbps," etc. If you are constantly at 256 or 320 you are technically closer to 1411kbps than you would with the bitrate dropping and rising all the time.
Lossless audio is 1411kbps. I don't buy the whole "this frame is ideal @ 160kbps, this frame is ideal @ 320kbps," etc. If you are constantly at 256 or 320 you are technically closer to 1411kbps than you would with the bitrate dropping and rising all the time.
well, VBR encoding algorithms have improved such that it is rather inefficient to use anything but that except for streaming purposes. we're well past the Xing days with muddy audio and uber-wabbling.
ABR is a trade-off of both VBR and CBR, with VBR used in a limited fashion as the encoder targets the mp3 file as close as possible to the ABR you set, be it 160, 192 or anything else.
ABR is a trade-off of both VBR and CBR, with VBR used in a limited fashion as the encoder targets the mp3 file as close as possible to the ABR you set, be it 160, 192 or anything else.
fact: VBR will give you the same sounding audio for less space than CBR. As scorcho said, about the ONLY reason to use CBR is for streaming. Otherwise CBR provides absolutely no advantage over VBR whatsoever and is actually deficient when it comes to filesize.Ecrofirt said:
It's like having two cars. Identical in looks, power, and features. Just one gets 27mpg and one gets 36mpg. Is it so hard to believe that someone just doesn't WANT the 36mpg one? Yes, yes it is.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Diablos said:
Why not?
MP3-PRO and AAC-HE are truly ideal for streaming, low-bitrate situations. using them for archival or local purposes is rather silly IMO as DAP support is relatively non-existant and i don't believe they were made with high bitrates in mind.
there are a ton of examples over at Hydrogen Audio which show that Nero-encoded AAC files are superior to nearly every lossy encoder out there on a bit-by-bit basis, especially on the low-end with AAC-HE (try the WOXY.COM 48kbps AAC-HE stream to see). that said, once pushed up to 192 it's really hard to discern much between LAME MP3, AAC, OGG and even WMA, kinda.
there are a ton of examples over at Hydrogen Audio which show that Nero-encoded AAC files are superior to nearly every lossy encoder out there on a bit-by-bit basis, especially on the low-end with AAC-HE (try the WOXY.COM 48kbps AAC-HE stream to see). that said, once pushed up to 192 it's really hard to discern much between LAME MP3, AAC, OGG and even WMA, kinda.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
i believe it's the same technology as in AAC-HE, where the encoder tries to replicate the high frequencies of the encoded audiotrack not by compressing it per se, but by creating a 'fingerprint' so that the player can recreate it. the advantage is that it saves a good deal of bits and allows the player to reserve more to the lower end where SBR cannot work on due to its complexity.muncheese said:
this is a falacy.Society said:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa is easier to compress than efjewalkjcfhewlaiejhcvwaeihfcviwe
similarly audio at a constant tone or audio with extremely low frequency response is easier to compress than audio with wider and more varied frequency response.
think of music as a frequency wave (which in fact it really is). during quieter parts of the wave there is, literally, less "data" there. similarly if there is a portion of data that is the exact same from frame to frame, why reencode it individually at every frame when you can just encode it once and tell it to repeat at every frame.
compression efficiency != throwing out data. 7-zip is more efficient than zip yet no data is lost.
because there are cetain times where bits are completely wasted on a piece of audio that doesn't need all the bits that a CBR allots. VBR has matured to where it'll sound better than CBR on the same audio track at comparable filesizes. a 192kbps CBR MP3 will not sound better than a ~192kbps VBR (LAME encoded of course) as the encoder will reserve bits that aren't needed for areas of greater complexity.Society said:
even a 256kbps CPR is wasted space as a ~250kbps VBR file will still be able to ratchet sections up to 320kbps when the audio demands it.
lol.. you're right. I should have clarified.scorcho said:bad analogy, i don't think the world would like a lossy file-compression scheme
the point is that 7-zip produces WAY smaller files than zip (in some cases as much as 5000% smaller) yet no data is lost. being a more efficient compression method does not equate to throwing data out, especially in this day and age of actually trying to make BETTER sounding/looking audio/video codecs.
- Status