| Author |
Topic: Best all around MP3 quality: 128 or 160? |
Jeff Strouse
From:
Jacksonville, Florida, USA
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 3:55 am |
|
Due to my recent problems with CDs going bad, I'm going to back up my entire collection on my harddrive. Although WAV files are the best (aren't they the same as the original disc?), they take up too much space. If I save as MP3s, I can atleast transfer what I want to an MP3 player device and have virtually my entire collection in a small, portable device.
I've been saving at 128, but is it better to go higher? I guess my question is, what's the best all around size for quality and size of the file. When I listen on my computer speakers (Altec Lansing with a floor subwoofer unit) 128 and 160 sound just as good to my ears. I can't really tell a difference from the original CD.
Thanks in advance! |
|
|
 |
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 4:08 am
|
|
I've found that 160 is a good compromise between size and sound quality, all soundfiles on my website is in 160. There is too much 'air' lost at 128, in my opinion..
Steinar
PS - yes, a standard wave file is equal to CD quality.
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
|
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 8:11 am
|
|
Go for the highest number your system will put out, for mass storage.
Long after the lower price joy
of buying a Smaller drive wears off,
will linger the saddening loss of "air"
or general sound quality...
To paraphrase an old New England saying.
"Long after the joy of low price wears off,
lingers the curse of low quality."
I euqate this directly to mp3ing CDs.
Big external USB and Firewire drives are pretty durned cheap these days.
Pay a few 20's more and get the bigger drive and save your collection at higher quality.
Many people saved their records to cassettes decades ago.
Later they had to pull them back out and do it again.
Not a perfect analogy, but it fits. |
|
|
|
Ben Slaughter
From:
Madera, California
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 12:45 pm
|
|
| I use 160. |
|
|
|
Will Holtz
From:
San Francisco, California, USA
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 5:14 pm
|
|
Also be aware that not all mp3 encoders are the same, and thus bit rate values are of limited use outside of the context of a specific encoder. For example, one of the highest ranked encoders is LAME, and one of the worst is iTunes. Thus an mp3 made in iTunes at 160kbps may sound worse than an mp3 made with LAME at 128kbps.
As a side note, some people speculate that Apple wanted iTunes to have a crappy mp3 encoder to encourage use of Apple's own audio formats. |
|
|
|
Jason Schofield
|
Posted 26 Apr 2006 7:51 pm
|
|
| I have over 17,000 tracks on my hard drive and I use 192 exclusively. Some of my favorites I burn at 320. I bought an external 250 gig drive to back up my collection and I use mp3collector to make sure all my tags are correct. It's a ton of work but I can click one folder and never hear the same song 24 hours a day for almost 2 months.. LOL. You wouldn't believe the mixes I get. I love having this much music at my fingertips. Don't scrimp on the quality if you can afford it. Good luck. Jason |
|
|
|
Bill Leff
From:
Santa Cruz, CA, USA
|
|
|
|
Wade Romonosky
From:
Illinois, USA
|
Posted 29 Apr 2006 8:50 pm
|
|
| I use 192 I have found it to be the best quality with the lowest amount of compression. It is the best compromise for me. I can't tell it's not the cd when I listen to it and I tried several styles of music. |
|
|
|
