Moved from CL - Dealing with mp3 quality

[Oliwerko]

Heya all,

Today I asked myself an interesting question I kept postponing for ages:

"Is it worth to store high-quality mp3s, or rather not for the sake of disk space?"

I mean, when converting/ripping/whatever way of creating mp3s, in what bitrate is it worth to store? I am indecisive between 128kbps and 256kbps. The sound quality isn't really that noticable, while the size is, significantly. 320kbps is usually a waste of space (right?). And going below 128 sounds like sewer music.

What bitrates do you have your mp3s in? In what bitrates do you save them?
Is it worth keeping 256kbps over 128?

EDIT: Sorry for the mess, move it please, I thought I was in gen-gen. 

[Nikolas]

I'll be honest here. I don't like mp3, period. I can spot 128 kbits but not 256 (I'm being totally honest, see?).

Thing is that storing is different than using everyday. I store everything in CD quality (WAV files) and use mp3s to get playing. My system and my monitors can detect minor issues, but with lower quality monitoring mp3s might sound better... :-/

[zabnat]

Depending on the music I don't think you should never go below 160 or 192kbps. When I convert something for myself, I use 256kbps with variable bitrate. VBR will save some diskspace because it only uses 256kbps where needed. And in my opinion quality difference between 128 and 256 kbps is huge.

[kaputtnik]

Don't ever do the 128! All my early composition and part of my mp3 music collection is virtually unenjoyable because I stored it in 128kpbs. The Hihats gargle and the voice bubbles and it sounds like something imported straight from underwater hell - just because my old speakers did not reproduce the massive loss in quality.

If I were you, I'd go with variable bitrate Ogg Vorbis, starting at 160kbps. The ogg format sounds much nicer in my opinion, which is absolutely subjective of course.

[Oliwerko]

Thanks for the advice, I thought that 128 was too little, but wanted to be sure.

Thing is that storing is different than using everyday. I store everything in CD quality (WAV files) and use mp3s to get playing.

Well, the question is - is it worth to store music in CD quality if you listen to it in mp3s? I mean, what else do you do with the music than listen to it?

Anyway, there are two places where I listen to music - my mp3 player (where you can forget anything about some "quality") and on my PC at home.
I have a pretty good set of speakers capable of producing high quality sound and use Winamp for playback. And that may be the thing why I don't really recognize those two bitrates. I use an "Enhancer" plugin, which is pretty much an advanced EQ and makes the music sound twice the good than it sounds originally.

[DrWhite]

Ever thought of storing game music in Mono mp3 files? Most games don´t really make use of stereo anyway... well, don´t know if AGS supports mono files at all and I couldn´t try it right now as my cooledit crashes all the time.

But besides that I think 160 is ok. 120 isn´t.

[Nikolas]

Thing is that storing is different than using everyday. I store everything in CD quality (WAV files) and use mp3s to get playing.

Well, the question is - is it worth to store music in CD quality if you listen to it in mp3s? I mean, what else do you do with the music than listen to it?

Well... Personally I work with music, so this answers your question.

As for the "enhancer" which makes music sound "twice as good", I'd say that this is an illusion. Louder, or birghter does not mean better. Considering that productions are created properly (which does happen in the commercial music world), it also means that the best way to listen is through "flat" monitoring/headphones, so that the colouring of your system won't influence the music you're listening.

[Tuomas]

I use an "Enhancer" plugin, which is pretty much an advanced EQ and makes the music sound twice the good than it sounds originally.

I personally think that the Winamp enhancer is pretty much useless. It's there to bring up sounds that aren't really there. You can't really expect your EQ to bring out noise that isn't available in the first place. And in the end, if you uuse lossy quality, it'll only bring up front the fuzz and leave the rest to the background. Though at some point some will get used to this and find it better. But when you try without it with good quality music and audio system, you'll realise, that it's just not that good. Basically works the same way as transcoding from 128kb/s to 256kb/s, where the conversion acts as if it has brought something new to the file and hence adds to the size, but basically plays the same shit.

I convert mine as 256 VBR mp3. Though I like to get as much out of them as possible, I don't think my mp3 player can put out any better, and basically when I feel like really listening to the stuff, I don't play the mp3s, I have CDs and preferrably vinyls for that. When I don't have something on CD, but for instance am buying it from the internet (as if), I would never even consider 256. It'd always be 320 or FLAC. That or what ever they have to offer, because I'm paying for it, and besically for me a reduced quality in a song is like getting a painting with reduced colours, which is unacceptable when in the studio they have more than 16 tapes to record it on as perfect analog sound.

Now I'm not an audiophile, but I consider listening to music a hobby rather than just something to do, and I do it at least 9 hours a day, no lie there. And I know there has been a lot of fighting about it, and arguments, even at the #AGS, if you really can hear a difference in the 160 OGG they use with Spotify, or a 256 mp3 or whatever. My opinion is that there is a difference, and when HDs are so huge nowadays, the size really isn't a limit.

[Oliwerko]

Well... Personally I work with music, so this answers your question.

I know that  - and I know that when actually creating, the highest is the best. But in the end, you're going to listen to music. That's the purpose. If I wasn't working with old amiga samples, I would use higher bitrate too 

I am aware that louder/brighter is not better. I'm a sound quality freak myself (at least on the local average level, where people can't hear any diff between 64 and 320), but I certainly don't think the Enhancer is useless. It surely does not "create" sound, but for me, it sounds really better. The music isn't so mushy, and it's a bit crispier.

It's clear to me that no enhancer or transcoding to higher bitrates, or any EQ can magically make the music better. You can't just create information that is not there. The point is - is it really worth having double bitrate (and twice the size) for that difference?

Now I'm not an audiophile, but I consider listening to music a hobby rather than just something to do, and I do it at least 9 hours a day, no lie there.

I'm pretty much the same.

And the thing about flat EQ - well, I know that in theory, that should work best. But with some tracks it surely doesn't. I remember having a specific EQ for one band, because when flat, the middle freqs were almost unaudible, but should be there. That was probably a problem on the recording side, but hell, it was commercial music!

I can't help myself, I just thought "wow" when finished tweaking the enhancer/EQ and while playing a song turned it on and off again.

[Nikolas]

The "scientific" reason on why EQ is useful some times and why it does, indeed, work is simple: Your listening conditions are far from perfect either. With a pair of perfect monitors, perfect amps, etc, you would still get "shity" results in an untreated room! So EQ comes into play. Some research (not extensive really) can be done and provide 10 presets which work best for a lot of people, based on habbits of living. This is why the "rock", "pop", "classical", "etc" presets are there. They are based on the assumption that you are listening through standard monitors/system/room and thus you are already getting tempered results.

[Anian]

That or what ever they have to offer, because I'm paying for it, and besically for me a reduced quality in a song is like getting a painting with reduced colours, which is unacceptable when in the studio they have more than 16 tapes to record it on as perfect analog sound.

Actually, that is the thing that confuses me the most - the whole apple/ipod store - they say for example how it's so cool and they sell 128kbps mp3s, that's btw sometimes copyprotected, and it's soooo cheap, like $0.99.

That just doesn't make any sense, unless I liked exactly one and only one song on some album and buying a single wasn't an option. I mean that's not cheap and it's shitty compression. If you buy more than 8 songs of an album it's starts to be more expensive than a regular album on a cd which costs like 10 bucks - not mentioning the fact that you get far better quallity plus a cd box plus a booklet.
And the worst offenders, which I just didn't get - were Radiohead, who sold In rainbows for "whatever you give us" price and I would have bought that, but it's a 128 kbps. Either that or buy a double cd super deluxe ultra collector edition. Radiohead has a billion different effects in almost any song, 50% of that would have been lost.

You'd think with the internet connection really speeding up the last few years, that they would go for Flac/Wav or at least for 320 kbps.  :

256 and VBR is I think the best quallity/space combo.

[arj0n]

Oliwerko:

Above 192 is in my opinion useless and indeed a waste of space
192kb is OK (for me the most perfect rate)
160kb will also do
128kb is a bit low, the bass for example will be less deep
Below 128 will sound a bit like mono, so not to recommend.

[DrWhite]

And the worst offenders, which I just didn't get - were Radiohead, who sold In rainbows for "whatever you give us" price and I would have bought that, but it's a 128 kbps.

I "bought" it for 0 pounds and got 160kb files from the Radiohed-page.