Bitrate quality--have you guys tried different rates?

bcompdudebcompdude
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Ok, I-just now-listened to a few songs encoded at 128k, 320, Apple lossless, and cd. Holy sh*t!! There is a gargantuan difference in quality between the 128k and the others. Interestingly enough, I could not tell the difference between the different rates on my laptop built in speakers nor on my cheapo desktop speakers (100 bucks). However, when pumped through my HT equipment, which isnt "top of the line" but decent (Klipsch Synergy F3's with their 12" sub) there was a world of difference. To be honest, this was the first time I've tried this out--I thought it was being blown out of proportion. . .guess not.



Anyone else have opinions? Either agreeing or disagreeing.



BTW--an audiophile I am not. Lol.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BCompDude

    Ok, I-just now-listened to a few songs encoded at 128k, 320, Apple lossless, and cd. Holy sh*t!! There is a gargantuan difference in quality between the 128k and the others. Interestingly enough, I could not tell the difference between the different rates on my laptop built in speakers nor on my cheapo desktop speakers (100 bucks). However, when pumped through my HT equipment, which isnt "top of the line" but decent (Klipsch Synergy F3's with their 12" sub) there was a world of difference. To be honest, this was the first time I've tried this out--I thought it was being blown out of proportion. . .guess not.



    Anyone else have opinions? Either agreeing or disagreeing.



    BTW--an audiophile I am not. Lol.



    of course



    128K/sec AAC is shit if you are worried about it sounding good. Even on my car stereo it sounds like crap and its just a stock Infinity sound system for a dodge dakota.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    bcompdudebcompdude Posts: 35member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    of course



    128K/sec AAC is shit if you are worried about it sounding good. Even on my car stereo it sounds like crap and its just a stock Infinity sound system for a dodge dakota.



    A lot of ppl, myself included until today, don't know that. Way to get to the point though. Lol.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    bigberthabigbertha Posts: 5member
    I ripped all my CDs to 320 AAC. It sounded decent enough through my Hi-Fi system, using Airport w/AirTunes. The files sounded even better through my Shure E3c earphones whether playing from my G5 iMac or direct from my iPod. However, i could only fit about 4,000 songs on my 40 GB iPod. I'm adding more files to my library every week and hate to delete anything. So...I have decided that I have to re-rip all my CDs to a lower bitrate. I started to use 160 AAC, but am now worried that it will sound like crap through my stereo system. I have yet to do much or a comparison between the two bitrates. Before I do though, I wonder if anyone else has done a comparison. Will 160 AAC be a high enough bitrate or should I go to 192 or maybe 224?
  • Reply 4 of 13
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Back in the day I used 160 kbit MP3. It was a happy compromise between file size and quality. Now I use 160 kbit AAC and get better quality.



    If I didn't have an iPod and I had a big drive, I'd consider a high bit-rate AAC, but since I want my music portable, I want it fairly lean.



    I can tell the difference between bitrates and codecs, but sometimes the quality is not the top priority.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool



    I can tell the difference between bitrates and codecs, but sometimes the quality is not the top priority.



    exactly. 128 aac is shit, but when i can move my music around so effortlessly and wirelessly, it jsut doesnt matter all that much.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    One more note about AAC vs. MP3.



    I have an iPod and iTunes. If I wanted more portability I'd use MP3 still. But I know I'm gonna use an iPod and iTunes so I committed to the codec.



    Also, I generally prefer to rip my own music. I also am anal about the album art, tags, and ratings.



    An aside...

    Back in the day I used a Rio 500. I upgraded it and had a whopping 128 MB of storage! I loved it. It was small, light, and worked with iTunes. I waited for the iPod mini before I bought an iPod. I loved the 3G scroll wheel and the size was the same as my Rio. I switched to AAC around the time that it came out as an option. At that point I wasn't in school and wasn't going to the gym, so the Rio was a little unused. I'd just listen to music at my desk at work or home or in the car via CD. Once the mini's came out it motivated me to run. Now that I take BART to work I listen to it for 30 minutes and read the paper. I actually enjoy my commute.

    End of rambling...
  • Reply 7 of 13
    jeremiah richjeremiah rich Posts: 853member
    I personally use Apple Lossless for my collection. I think I have about 50 gigs of stuff now. A lot of what I have is live music from archive.org that I have converted from SHN or FLAC to wav then to lossless. Unfortunately there is no way to convert directly, so it takes some time. Anyways, I listen through JBL Northridge speakers, so I even can tell a difference from 320k mp3 to lossless. For headphones I use Sennheiser HS 280 pro's. When I do use mp3 I have used 320, but still prefer lossless.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    Right or wrong, I re-ripped my music into 320+ MP3. (Way back when, I ripped my music into 128bit MP3 but obviously I had no idea what the hell I was doing.) I went with MP3 for compatibility down the road since I think that codec will be supported for the next 10 years.



    But now I have the problem others have. I can't take enough of my music with me, and I just bought a Mac mini to be a music server, and the drive isn't big enough.



    Help Needed:



    1. Can I just use iTunes and have the files converted down into a 192 or 220 AAC, or should I re-rip?



    2. Which bit rate is reasonable and should it be AAC?



    3. Moving forward, should I rip my music in Apple lossless so I can always convert it down for portability?



    Thanks so much.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    If you have the time and space, ripping in Apple lossless means you can always convert to some alternate format without any generational loss in quality. If you convert your 320 kbit MP3 to a 160 kbit MP3, its gonna sound worse than if you just ripped it at 160 kbit to begin with.



    AAC in general is a better codec and produces better results at the same bitrate than MP3, but this isn't an absolute rule.



    Keep in mind that Apple lossless is like 4x larger than AAC/MP3, so if your drive is already full, lossless will not make your life easier.



    Why don't you take a track and rip it in different formats and listen to it in different environments (headphones, speakers, car) and see what you find acceptable.



    When testing on the computer I like to open all the files in Quicktime player and sync there playback, but only allowing audio on the front-most window. Then I can switch windows and hear the formats compared to each other.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    mpmoriartympmoriarty Posts: 289member
    I don't know...128k AAC seems to sound pretty good on my car's stereo. Possibly the only thing I have trouble with sometimes is that the initial volume of a song might seem a little too low so I just use iTunes' volume adjustment slider to fix this.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    mendosimendosi Posts: 36member
    What I am doing with my collection is ripping everything that I record (I'm a musician) into Apple Lossless and then burning to DVD so that it doesn't consume my HD.

    Because I have approximately three times too much music for my 10GB iPod I have it all at 128Kb/s AAC, or some even at 64Kb/s (the Ring Cycle). For me volume of music accessible instantly is more important than quality since I'll be using either the iPod earbuds or my iBook speakers - neither of which is fantastic.



    Had I started now, with what I know and the technology available, every CD I would rip to ALAC and store this either on an 80+GB external HD or a bunch of DVDs (not both because it's replacable data and no pressing need to back up) and then pick a good bitrate from there to use for my iPod playback.



    When I get enough money to buy good speakers and other playback equipment, I may go back through and implement this - but I won't do it now because by the time I have said equipment who knows where technology will be?



    Mendosi
  • Reply 12 of 13
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I use 256 aac. In my car this is nearly indistinguishable from lossless while driving. While parked with the engine off, I can barely tell the difference on some songs.



    Someday I fully anticipate using lossless for everything since there won't be a reason not to. Except, by that point, lossless redbook audio will be considered lofi
  • Reply 13 of 13
    keshkesh Posts: 621member
    128 AAC sounds about equivalent to 160 MP3, which is acceptable to me but not great.



    Here's the best solution: if you only use the files on your desktop or laptop, use Apple Lossless. Same if you use an iPod shuffle, just let the shuffle re-encode the files to 128 AAC when it syncs them.



    For other iPods, you'll want to encode the files straight into a smaller bitrate AAC file. The sweet spot is 160 to 192 Kb/sec. This is 'good enough' sound, while keeping the file sizes down.



    And you have to keep the file sizes down if you want good battery life out of your iPod. The iPod loads the next songs you want to play into it's RAM, and you can only fit so many songs into RAM. Then it spins down the HD until it needs to fill the memory again.



    So, the bigger your files = more HD access necessary = less battery life.
Sign In or Register to comment.