128 Kbps (CBR vs VBR) vs. higher audio bitrates

[JohnE.]

Best in the sense of being the most reasonable compromise between audio quality and file size. For example, 128 CBR produces small files but often contains artifacts, 320 CBR contains few, if any, artifacts but wastes space with padded samples, making for large files. 192 VBR can achieve the same or better audio quality as 320 CBR (VBR can exceed the 320 ceiling if needed) at considerably smaller file sizes.

Of course, lossless is the true "best" in audio quality, but the files are much larger than even 320 CBR. I suppose it all depends on your needs and target audience. For example, I wouldn't send a FLAC file of the latest mix of some song I've been writing to our drummer via email, but a 128 CBR would do fine if a VBR version was too large for his inbox. If I needed to get the multi-track session files to him (via CD-R/W, private bittorrent, file hosting sites, etc) so he could add a drum track and get it back to me, then nothing but lossless would do.

I remember hearing about something similar to the type of encoding you're describing a few years ago, but can't for the life of me remember what it was called. If I do eventually recall any details I'll google it and post any info I find.

[Gomar]

If possible, just use 112kbps. You wont notice any difference from 128.128=160kbps as for CBR vs. VBR: just set VBR min&max to 112 or 128.Lossless I use WMA as my MP3 player doesnt play FLAC.I might switch to lossy WMA 96kbps as it sounds same as a 128 MP3.

[herbstech]

I tried a few different bitrates for AAC and I like 320 the best. Even the default for iTunes is 256, not 128. Did you ever wonder why that is? People that think 128 is "good enough" must have not so good ears and/or the music that they mostly listen to at that bitrate is such that it is adequate (for them). I listen to music with a lot of subtle details and demand clear crisp accurate cymbal crashes, not treash can lids.

A good test is to pick the absolute worst bitrate you can find (maybe MP3 32 Kbps) and listen to a song you know well. Listen for the artifacts. Then rerip that same song at 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 256, and 320. Work your way up until you can hear no artifacts. Then go 1 setting higher for a "cushion". If you do that, you should be able to fool your brain and ears that you are listening to a CD.

I dont take a chance, I use 320 VBR AAC on my iPod. Probably 99% CD quality (only 1 out of 100 people could tell the difference). That is my estimate, not a fact.

One drawback to using 320 vs. say 128 is it takes longer to load the iPod with the 320s. No biggie though. It is worth it to me.

[Gomar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by herbstech

One drawback to using 320 vs. say 128 is it takes longer to load the iPod with the 320s. No biggie though. It is worth it to me.

Having a lossless back-up, and the original CD, you can use 128 to place 1000 songs on a 4gb MP3 player;especially if listening with cheap $10 headphones.If playing on large speakers, why use MP3 at all? Just play the original CD. Afterall, wasnt MP3 and lossy formats made to be played on MP3 players?

[herbstech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomar

Having a lossless back-up, and the original CD, you can use 128 to place 1000 songs on a 4gb MP3 player;especially if listening with cheap $10 headphones.If playing on large speakers, why use MP3 at all? Just play the original CD. Afterall, wasnt MP3 and lossy formats made to be played on MP3 players?

That is only a small subset of what people actually can do. What about people that load symphonies (not 4 minute songs) on iPods like I do. What about people that have high quality headphones? What about people that load a few "songs" at a time on their iPod then replace those with other songs? Some people that use large speakers may not want to have to fumble to find the correct CD if they have a 1000 song library already on their iPod that is sorted/indexed/categorized. There are many more cases that would advocate not doing what you suggest.

Also, $10 headphones is not an indicator of their quality. They could be high end headphones that someone sold at a garage sale for $10 not knowing how good they really are. You have to be more specific than that.

I understand there is a tradeoff between # of songs and quality with the break even point being somewhere between 128 and 256 Kbps but the best advice is to analyze your situation and use the appropriate tradeoffs. For some people that may be 64 Kbps Ogg Vorbis so they can email it quickly and for others it might be lossless WMA or Apple lossless and for others it may be 128 Kbps CBR AAC also for iPods.

I personally prefer 256 or 320 Kbps AAC VBR for my iPod because that is about 99% CD quality at about 1/5th the size. I dont use MP3 unless I am testing it such as comparing it to AAC and/or listening for artifacts.

For a "fun" test, rip your favorite or any personal well known song to a very low bitrate such as MP3 64 Kbps (stereo) and have a listen. Then try successively higher bitrates until it sounds like a CD again. When you think you got it (let's say 128 sounds like a CD to you), immediately compare than with the true uncompressed music on the same listening device. If you can hear a difference then you stopped short and you need to try 160, 192, 224, 256, 288, 320...

My personal opinion is even if you are satisifed with say 160Kbps, you should allow a cushion and bump it up to 192 because there may be a song out there you haven't ripped yet that is more complex than 160 can handle well so it needs that margin of safety.