GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   What Bitrate For MP3 Downloads? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=682532)

samsam 12-01-2006 04:27 AM

What Bitrate For MP3 Downloads?
 
What is the optimum download bitrate for MP3 tracks?

what gives the best quality without producing too large file sizes?

samsam 12-01-2006 04:41 AM

Which is better... 128 Kbps or 192 Kbps ????

salesman 12-01-2006 04:49 AM

I prefer VBR, better as 128 is 192 and better than 192 is 256, ...

LB-69 12-01-2006 04:51 AM

Re
 
192 is good enough, the minimum should be 160. 128 is shitty quality.

prezzz 12-01-2006 04:52 AM

No less than 192k IMO - at least if you're listening to the music on a decent stereo system.

notabook 12-01-2006 04:55 AM

128 minimum with cheap speakers, 192 for decent speakers. If space is a concern VBR 110-150kbps would be best option.

biftek 12-01-2006 04:55 AM

i encode all mine at 224 ,mainly because i use them for my radio show too ,

Jace 12-01-2006 04:57 AM

LOL, you all are hilarious

128 is fine, 128kbps is cd quality

unless you have some amazing sound system in your house or car, you aren't going to notice the difference

notabook 12-01-2006 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace (Post 11427529)
LOL, you all are hilarious

128 is fine, 128kbps is cd quality

unless you have some amazing sound system in your house or car, you aren't going to notice the difference

That's true for most people, definitely not all. I'm not even close to being an audiophile but I can tell a vast difference between 128 and 192 MP3's. I have a fairly shitty sound setup as well (cheap ass 5.1).

luvlyn 12-01-2006 05:03 AM

20 kbps makes about 500kb wma, good in computers but not in ipods

Jace 12-01-2006 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook (Post 11427546)
That's true for most people, definitely not all. I'm not even close to being an audiophile but I can tell a vast difference between 128 and 192 MP3's. I have a fairly shitty sound setup as well (cheap ass 5.1).

well, I have been in the sound business since I was 18, and I can tell you one thing, it isn't 100% about the kbps, you have to also take into consideration the encoding tools used...if you use shitty software you can have a 192 sound like a 96

I have friends that are die hard 320kbps for anything they download....we all dj the same music at the same clubs on different nights, and no one (even them) can tell that I am using the 128 over their 320

notabook 12-01-2006 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace (Post 11427561)
well, I have been in the sound business since I was 18, and I can tell you one thing, it isn't 100% about the kbps, you have to also take into consideration the encoding tools used...if you use shitty software you can have a 192 sound like a 96

I have friends that are die hard 320kbps for anything they download....we all dj the same music at the same clubs on different nights, and no one (even them) can tell that I am using the 128 over their 320

True enough. I've always had a knack for picking up subtle differences in music though. Like those 'tonedeaf' tests, where they play a sound file then play another sound file that is slightly different, I would always get 100% correct. The really funny thing is I almost hate music, I don't own a single music CD. For the longest time I didn?t even have a radio in my car because I just simply wouldn?t use it LOL. The only music I've ever found to my liking is Europop (as gay as that may be).

I guess it?s sorta like how many people can?t see more than 32fps, and how most can?t see past 64fps? yet many fighter pilots have been observed in tests seeing way beyond 64fps. Weird chit.

Jace 12-01-2006 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook (Post 11427583)
True enough. I've always had a knack for picking up subtle differences in music though. Like those 'tonedeaf' tests, where they play a sound file then play another sound file that is slightly different, I would always get 100% correct. The really funny thing is I almost hate music, I don't own a single music CD. For the longest time I didn?t even have a radio in my car because I just simply wouldn?t use it LOL. The only music I've ever found to my liking is Europop (as gay as that may be).

I guess it?s sorta like how many people can?t see more than 32fps, and how most can?t see past 64fps? yet many fighter pilots have been observed in tests seeing way beyond 64fps. Weird chit.

europop :) haha

wish I had your hearing though, mine is all jacked up most of the time

notabook 12-01-2006 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace (Post 11427587)
europop :) haha

wish I had your hearing though, mine is all jacked up most of the time

Man when I was a kid my ears stayed fucked up, I had so many buttons put in there. When I hit my teens it all went away and I could hear awesome. Then my eyesight got horrible LMAO. It?s as if one sense got traded for the other one. Now I hear great and can?t see worth a shit, if I don?t wear these fucking 1lb coke-bottle glasses I can?t see anything but one big blur.

I'd trade better eyesight for my hearing any day of the week :(

Jace 12-01-2006 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook (Post 11427626)
Man when I was a kid my ears stayed fucked up, I had so many buttons put in there. When I hit my teens it all went away and I could hear awesome. Then my eyesight got horrible LMAO. It?s as if one sense got traded for the other one. Now I hear great and can?t see worth a shit, if I don?t wear these fucking 1lb coke-bottle glasses I can?t see anything but one big blur.

I'd trade better eyesight for my hearing any day of the week :(

ha, you sound like me

I had tubes in my ears growing up and constant ear infections, and add the coke bottle glasses on top of that, well, I was a sick dork

I got the eyes fixed last year though, LASIK is wonderful....I was just on the edge of not being able to have it done though, if my eyes were much worse they wouldn't have been able to go through with it

now I just have to get my ears fixed up, it is mostly infectiions and constant wax that get me, if I went in every time I was supposed to to get them checked I would have so much better hearing

Manowar 12-01-2006 07:10 AM

i use 224 or 192

bl4h 12-01-2006 07:13 AM

gotta be at least 192...

There is a very noticable difference between 128 and 192

4Man 12-01-2006 07:21 AM

192 the best

The Sultan Of Smut 12-01-2006 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace (Post 11427529)
LOL, you all are hilarious

128 is fine, 128kbps is cd quality

unless you have some amazing sound system in your house or car, you aren't going to notice the difference

No way dude 128 is only decent for electronic stuff and it sucks for pretty much everything else. I've noticed that when rock is encoded at 128kps it loses some of the low frequencies.

For most genres 160 is good enough and that's what I'd say is the minimum for CD quality. For each additional instrument that the track contains adds additional information so encoding an orchestra at 128kps just isn't going to work out too good.

When I ripped all my CDs I did it at 320 since storage even on portables isn't as big of an issue as it used to be. MP3 is a lossy codec so once you've encoded it a particular bitrate the other info is gone for good. I'd rather have a large block of stone with some extra to carve off later should I decide to re-encode the tracks using a different codec :)

If file size is a huge concern for ya then you should go with variable bitrate encoding (VBR) with an average of 192 would be best solution.

bl4h 12-01-2006 07:52 AM

Some programs call 128 cd quality, but its not true.

audio cds > 1411 kbps


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123