What Bit Rate do You Use to Import Songs to iTunes?

sonofsylvanussonofsylvanus
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
To go with the amount of GB/number of songs threads around at the moment, I just wanted to see what default Bit-Rate people were using to rip songs from their CDs into iTunes.



Why do you use this Bit-Rate? Can you really tell much difference above 128kbps AAC? Do you use AAC or mp3? (Are you worried about compatibility issues/do you use Kazaa/Poisoned etc - *cough*/are you restricted by HD GB?)



My initial default was 128kbps AAC at 44.100 kHz But, I *thought* I could here some weird sound aspects at high volumes, and was hoping to get better bass, so I changed to 192kbps AAC at 48.000kHz. I think it is better. Less than 128kpbs isn't really acceptable - some of the mp3s my brother recorded for me sound crap cos they are at 96kbps.



Please tick one of the boxes in the poll.



Thanks
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    amaroneamarone Posts: 75member
    You're welcome!



    I encode as mp3 with a 224-VBR bitrate and it sounds very good.



    Never tried AAC.



    What's better?
  • Reply 2 of 38
    stevegongruistevegongrui Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by amarone

    You're welcome!



    I encode as mp3 with a 224-VBR bitrate and it sounds very good.



    Never tried AAC.



    What's better?





    AAC is definitely better.
  • Reply 3 of 38
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    MP3 192kbps constant bit rate.



    It's a reliable format and I'm sticking with it.
  • Reply 4 of 38
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    I only listen to my ripped songs through earphones (when I want to do serious listening I use a CD player), so I did a lot of comparisons before ripping my collection and came to the conclusion that 128 kbps AAC was the way to go.



    Interestingly, through earphones I can't tell the difference between it and the source, whilst anything below 192 in mp3 format sounds pretty horrible to me.
  • Reply 5 of 38
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    I only listen to my ripped songs through earphones (when I want to do serious listening I use a CD player), so I did a lot of comparisons before ripping my collection and came to the conclusion that 128 kbps AAC was the way to go.



    Interestingly, through earphones I can't tell the difference between it and the source, whilst anything below 192 in mp3 format sounds pretty horrible to me.



    ya... anything baove 128KB/S in .aac is a waste of space..
  • Reply 6 of 38
    machemmachem Posts: 319member
    I use 192, but VBR, so the average is usually a bit above, 200 or so. I'm pretty happy with that. Some songs, I have gone as high as 320, but I really can't notice the difference.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    I used to use 192 mp3 VBR, but now I just use 128 .aac
  • Reply 8 of 38
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    192 AAC. I always used 192 mp3 before, so I figure I might as well stick with 192 since I have the space for it.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    AIFF then convert to 128 AAC for my 'pod and store compressed as FLAC in case I need to reencode e.g. to create mp3-CDs for my girlfriends DVD player etc.
  • Reply 10 of 38
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    160 AAC



    Sounds great, anything more is a waste for me.
  • Reply 11 of 38
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murbot

    160 AAC



    Sounds great, anything more is a waste for me.



    Same here. Used to rip using 160 MP3s, but when AAC came out I switched codecs. 160 AAC IMHO is the perfect balance between file size and sound quality.



    And yes, I've compared various rips at different bit rates with different codecs. I am also anal about video encoding as well and am the first to notice compression artifacts.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    merovingianmerovingian Posts: 436member
    I use 256 AAC.



    I can hear some differences with songs at different bit rates, yet apparently I can't hear as well as the average person my age. (I think I should get my ears flushed).



    I have plenty HD space, so why not? m.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    thunderpoitthunderpoit Posts: 709member
    90% of my collection is 192VBR mp3 with the encoder set to high, so everything is around 200-224

    all of my new stuff is ripped with 192 AAC. ive got a 3x80 GB raid, so im not worried about space
  • Reply 14 of 38
    gsxrboygsxrboy Posts: 565member
    192k aac
  • Reply 15 of 38
    dr_holisticdr_holistic Posts: 114member
    NO CONTEST !!!



    192 aac
  • Reply 16 of 38
    cooopcooop Posts: 390member
    320 AAC. Yes, I'm paranoid.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    digitaldavedigitaldave Posts: 445member
    128 kbit/s AAC. Sounds fine to me on the iMac and iPod.



    Dave.
  • Reply 18 of 38
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    320 AAC. Because I can.
  • Reply 19 of 38
    macserverxmacserverx Posts: 217member
    Used 160 MP3 until AAC came out. Then switched to 160 AAC, since the file size wasn't a huge factor and I could tell the quality difference, so I stuck with it. Although one CD I ripped using 160 AAC, I think it got really loud and it would clip and sounded absolutely terrible, (and not from speaker quality, cuz it was burned and played through a standard CD player). I proceeded to re-rip at the max setting for AAC and the problem continued, so I finally ripped at 256 MP3 when the problem was fixed.



    I realize this thread isn't about this, but should I have done 48kHz instead of Auto or anything else?
  • Reply 20 of 38
    keshkesh Posts: 621member
    Used to do 256-constant MP3. Now, 192-constant AAC sounds just as good, so that's what I use.
Sign In or Register to comment.