What's your MP3 Listening Quality?

[SF1_freeze 131]

I'm one of probably few I'tunes refusers. I organize my music per hand in countless of folders and only store it in highest mp3 quality (means 320 kilo bytes per second).

The difference between that and the higher quality lossless files is not really noticeable. You would probably need a immensly expensive high end sound system to hear any difference. But with good equpiment there ceratinly are big differences when listening to lower quality mp3's.

I have high end earphones (more than 200€ ) and its a joy to listen to high quality files but i cannot really listen to less than 256kbps quality anymore. With such equipment you hear the compression, the growing problems to seperate certain instruments or the loss of volume...

When i looked at your trading lists and such i noticed that almost no one clarified the quality of your music. How do you store it, what is your opininon on these issues? Did you have trades where you got something rare and interesting only to find out later that the sound quality is so bad that it's not listenable?

[Datameister 2,042]

If I own the CD, I rip it in WAV format for editing and archival purposes. But I listen to it in 256kbps AAC format, which sounds virtually indistinguishable from lossless files to my ear. (I'm using Sony MDR-7506 headphones, so that's not the problem...)

I do get annoyed by mp3 compression at lower bitrates...anything below 256k definitely gets bothersome. I try to avoid that.

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't see anything wrong with my headphones...

[Jay 37,352]

Rip as WAV. Make FLAC version to use for trading, and if I'm listening at my computer.

Convert to VBR mp3s for ipod usage. I use the "extreme" preset for film music and the "standard" preset for other music. VBR is definitely the way to go, I can't believe in 2010 most people still use constant bitrate encoding.

[Trent B 337]

I rip my own CD's as wav, then convert them to flac. For putting scores on my iPod I use the Apple Lossless encoder.

[Wojo 2,453]

Jay, what do you encode with?

I rip to WAV, then convert to FLAC for archival storage on my external HDD and 320 MP3 for my iPod. I couldn't tell you if I use VBR or not. The CDs go on a shelf, and until I get some larger internal hard drives, my external drive stay disconnected except for uploading to it. So I listen to the MP3 either on the computer or with the iPod docked in my stereo, which was the point of getting such a stereo.

But for everything I got in college or from others at 128 or 160, I don't go out of my way to seek it in higher bitrates. My ears aren't that good. I do have some poorer files at 112, 96, or worse, but those are where the musical sources cannot be found in higher quality, and I don't listen to them. Or if they're YouTube rips, well, free is free...

[Jay 37,352]

LAMEdrop, or I have audiograbber use LAME directly

[SF1_freeze 131]

Is there any difference between 320kbps MP3s and Wav? I thought 320kbps sounded good enough for storage on an external HDD. I mean its almost CD quality

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Usually 320 for the iPod and FLAC for archiving and through my stereo. I have some rarer stuff that's only at like 192, but that's usually as low as I'll go. Everything is on a 500gb external.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'll check it out. I've been using FormatFactory lately to go to MP3, and FlacFrontEnd to go to FLAC.

[crocodile 8,006]

I mostly use Apple Lossless (sometimes 256k AAC for less interesting things). Good enough for me. I don't keep much music in mp3.

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

Is there any difference between 320kbps MP3s and Wav? I thought 320kbps sounded good enough for storage on an external HDD. I mean its almost CD quality

Of course. Even a 320 kbps MP3 is compressed and lossy compared to a lossless WAV at 1411.2 kbps.

Roughly speaking, the last time I checked, an 80 minute album would be about 700 megs in WAV, 400 megs in FLAC, 100-200 megs at 320 kbps MP3, and <100 megs at 128 kbps MP3.

But using whatever "sounds good" is a subjective argument. Everybody's ears operate at different sensitivities. What sounds great to one person is acceptable to another person, but is complete garbage to somebody else. Now whether that person has the ears of a dog, owns high fidelity equipment, or is just anally retentive about their music for the sake of argument is anybody's guess.

[Jay 37,352]

Is there any difference between 320kbps MP3s and Wav? I thought 320kbps sounded good enough for storage on an external HDD. I mean its almost CD quality

WAV is 100% identical to what's on the CD, bit for bit. FLAC is also identical, except its compressed to take up less file space. Think of it as individually zipping each track, and unzipping them on the fly when listening.

Any form of mp3 is compressed. Its taking the sound and resampling it into an entire new file. 320kbps SOUNDS identical to a lot of people, but it technically isn't. It's just good enough for most people.

[SF1_freeze 131]

That's what i thought too. If it sounds in fact identical to most on the majority of equipment mp3 320kbps is in my opinion good enough for digital storage... and in case i always can go back to my cd shelf and rip in better quality (although that would be hours and hours of work...)

[ChuckM 1]

I use FLAC whenever possible. My trading list does give the format (and bps when mp3) for each score, and I can downgrade FLAC to mp3 per request of the trader.

And I too am an iTunes refuser, SF1_freeze. You might be interested in checking out MediaMonkey.

[Wojo 2,453]

Or the ml+iPod plugin for Winamp.

[SF1_freeze 131]

Thx for the tip Chuck, do you use the freeware or the gold version and how works that program. What are the advantages to storing in folders like i do at the moment?

[Richard Penna 3,686]

If I buy a CD, I rip it at 320k mp3. If I buy or acquire digitally, my lower limit is 192k, and I'd only go lower if there really was no other way to get hold of the music, as I can definitely start to hear compression @ 128k.

I tried flacs for a period, but realistically, on a normal PC with nothing special sound-wise, there's no audible improvement from 320k mp3 and they just take up so much space. The only disadvantage is when I do editing, and with mp3s that will lead to obvious quality loss, but that's negligible at high bitrates.

[Wojo 2,453]

My FLACs on an external 1.5 TB are an investment for the future, when the technology catches up to the music quality.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

When i looked at your trading lists and such i noticed that almost no one clarified the quality of your music. How do you store it, what is your opininon on these issues? Did you have trades where you got something rare and interesting only to find out later that the sound quality is so bad that it's not listenable?

Which is one reason why I prefer lossless formats. If everybody would use lossless compression schemes, you wouldn't have to worry about compression quality. Otherwise, the fact that someone gives you a CDR copy doesn't mean that it wasn't already ripped to 128kbit MP3 files and written back to WAV (CD) ten times before.

[Trent B 337]

An external terabyte drive is definitely handy. I recently bought an external 1.5 terabyte drive myself since I only have a 300GB hard drive in my computer. I was running out of room quick.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

I tried flacs for a period, but realistically, on a normal PC with nothing special sound-wise, there's no audible improvement from 320k mp3 and they just take up so much space. The only disadvantage is when I do editing, and with mp3s that will lead to obvious quality loss, but that's negligible at high bitrates.

Theoretically. But I imagine every time you re-save an MP3, you'll lose a little quality. Unless you keep a counter, you wouldn't know how much a file has already degraded.

Also, MP3 doesn't handle file ending cleanly, as far as I know. Which is also the reason why it's not capable of gapless playback (any player that does gapless MP3 playback is basically just making an educated guess to skip any silence at the end of the file).

[Trent B 337]

I tried flacs for a period, but realistically, on a normal PC with nothing special sound-wise, there's no audible improvement from 320k mp3 and they just take up so much space. The only disadvantage is when I do editing, and with mp3s that will lead to obvious quality loss, but that's negligible at high bitrates.

Theoretically. But I imagine every time you re-save an MP3, you'll lose a little quality. Unless you keep a counter, you wouldn't know how much a file has already degraded.

Also, MP3 doesn't handle file ending cleanly, as far as I know. Which is also the reason why it's not capable of gapless playback (any player that does gapless MP3 playback is basically just making an educated guess to skip any silence at the end of the file).

All of what you said is true, especially about that mp3's don't handle gapless playback very well.

[King Mark 3,631]

I go for 320kbps now ,even if I can't hear the difference 192k and higher

Gapless seem to work for me in ipods

I can't believe some MP3's on the net are still 128k

[Wojo 2,453]

Gapless playback works in MP3s because the players cheat. They calculate when the first song starts to fade and start playing the second song before that happens, creating the illusion of no gap. As long as I process my MP3s in ml+iPod after I copy them to the player, yes, it seems to work.

Provided the CD was gapless when I ripped it. I have ripped gapless CDs to MP3, burned them to CD-R, and then re-ripped them again, and I can hear every single gap between the tracks. Mostly live concerts. That's a flaw of the rip/burn/rip process that takes time and initiative to fix.

[ChuckM 1]

Thx for the tip Chuck, do you use the freeware or the gold version and how works that program. What are the advantages to storing in folders like i do at the moment?

I used the freeware version for a long time and never had any problems with it. I eventually upgraded primarily because I appreciated their work so much that I wanted to support it.

I too store in folders like you do. That's one of the great things about MediaMonkey. It works equally well with a folder based directory system or with its own library.

With the folders, it's great because I can navigate through them from within the program. At the same time, I also do have its fantastic library system there to help me if I need to find something. But if you don't want to, you really don't even have to scan for your music. You can use it just as well with only the directory system.

[King Mark 3,631]

I use itunes but I also organize by folder .So I don't let itunes organize them

[Koray Savas 2,251]

256 AAC or 320 mp3

[John Crichton 4]

Windows Lossless. I only use MP3 if it's the format I received it in.

I still listen to the physical CDs in the car.

[King Mark 3,631]

My huge problem with AAC and WMA's is that's an invitation to re-rip your collection eventually

Happened when I had ripped all my c.d.'s to WMA then I bought an ipod.

[Trent B 337]

For mp3's if a foot-warmer is all that is available in mp3 format then that will be okay just as long as its either 256-320k. Thankfully most foot-warmers that are leaked these days are either in lossless or mp3 320k.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I tried flacs for a period, but realistically, on a normal PC with nothing special sound-wise, there's no audible improvement from 320k mp3 and they just take up so much space. The only disadvantage is when I do editing, and with mp3s that will lead to obvious quality loss, but that's negligible at high bitrates.

Theoretically. But I imagine every time you re-save an MP3, you'll lose a little quality. Unless you keep a counter, you wouldn't know how much a file has already degraded.

Also, MP3 doesn't handle file ending cleanly, as far as I know. Which is also the reason why it's not capable of gapless playback (any player that does gapless MP3 playback is basically just making an educated guess to skip any silence at the end of the file).

All of what you said is true, especially about that mp3's don't handle gapless playback very well.

This is not true. It's merely an issue with the way data is structured by chunks in MP3, so if the last slot isn't filled completely, additional silence is added. All that needs to happen when encoding is account for the empty areas of that slot and include that information with the file voila. iTunes has been doing that for a while now. Try it, MP3's encoded in iTunes play back gapless flawlessly in iTunes and iPods that support gapless playback.

Lossless is a great archival medium. But for playback, especially on mobile devices, grossly overrated and inefficient.

[Jay 37,352]

Lossless is a great archival medium. But for playback, especially on mobile devices, grossly overrated and inefficient.

Perfect summation Blume. Gold star for you

[John Crichton 4]

My huge problem with AAC and WMA's is that's an invitation to re-rip your collection eventually

Happened when I had ripped all my c.d.'s to WMA then I bought an ipod.

I already would have if Apple would care to make iTunes compatible with products other than an iPod.

[publicist 4,643]

I see no problem with encoding, per se. But i can faintly remember the time i still used the old CoolEdit Fraunhofer codec and the sound was somewhat sucky compared to my encoding with Lame. Then, it dawned on me that some codecs may be more equal than others and i'm a staunch lame-supporter since....especially since downloading stuff from the net has acquainted me with the horrors of terrible-sounding 320k rips. It's not the bitrate, it's the codec, folks!

[Jay 37,352]

Agreed completely! mp3s made with LAME sound SO much better that ones made for example with whatever is built into iTunes. Blech.

I'm glad the trading community had adopted flac

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

This is not true. It's merely an issue with the way data is structured by chunks in MP3, so if the last slot isn't filled completely, additional silence is added. All that needs to happen when encoding is account for the empty areas of that slot and include that information with the file voila. iTunes has been doing that for a while now. Try it, MP3's encoded in iTunes play back gapless flawlessly in iTunes and iPods that support gapless playback.

That seems to be what I said above. Or do encoders have a way to specify how much of the silence in the last slot is "unused"?

Lossless is a great archival medium. But for playback, especially on mobile devices, grossly overrated and inefficient.

Playback on PCs is perfectly fine. For my phone, I encode to MP3 when transferring (I really don't see why Android's player doesn't support OGG, but apparently it doesn't). But I'm waiting for the day when I don't have to re-encode to take my music with me.

I see no problem with encoding, per se. But i can faintly remember the time i still used the old CoolEdit Fraunhofer codec and the sound was somewhat sucky compared to my encoding with Lame. Then, it dawned on me that some codecs may be more equal than others and i'm a staunch lame-supporter since....

Of course, we probably wouldn't have LAME if software patents existed in most countries. Its legality in the US is unclear.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I go for 320kbps now ,even if I can't hear the difference 192k and higher

Gapless seem to work for me in ipods

I can't believe some MP3's on the net are still 128k

Generally they're rarer things that have been around for years. I've got a rip of The Mask at 128, and that's the only one I've ever seen. Clearly, someone ripped it when they bought the CD in the infancy of the net, and 128k was faster to transfer. Thing is that it doesn't really sound subpar on its own (if it's well encoded it should sound ok) - it's only if you compared it to 320 that you'd notice the latter had more oomph.

In fact the only bitrate I flat out won't accept is 96k. The compression is horrendously visible by that point to the point where the sound is distorted.

There's a plugin for Winamp that does a great job at gapless playback. It visibly prepares the second track for playback in the GUI, and switches over to it at just the right point. It works brilliantly with something like the Ice Age 3 score.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

Lack of oomph is not my problem with 128k files. It's the oscillating sound of many instruments, especially percussion, which gets a water-like sound already at 192k in my experience.

[Ollie 1,059]

I use whatever iTunes uses when I rip my CDs to it.

[Jay 37,352]

Mark, you should seriously consider going into the setting and increasing the bitrate

[Nemesis 245]

I rip my cd's as WAV and listen also as WAV on my pc (because I often edit tracks and that's only possible for me when the tracks are in WAV). I don't listen music ona mp3 player. When I was younger I had a Walkman but these days are over. Now I am listening with my Sennheiser HD 650.

[Ollie 1,059]

Why?

I'm apparently in the minority but I actually play my CDs. I don't get them and rip them and then stick them on the shelf to collect dust.

I'm not criticizing those of you who do prefer playing them as files instead of the physical disc. But I mostly use my iPod when I'm away from the house or doing something where I really don't have a CD player near me. For that purpose 256kbps / 128 kbps sounds perfectly fine. I can load my CD into iTunes and add the artwork and it automatically goes to my external HD.

[SF1_freeze 131]

I used the freeware version for a long time and never had any problems with it. I eventually upgraded primarily because I appreciated their work so much that I wanted to support it.

I too store in folders like you do. That's one of the great things about MediaMonkey. It works equally well with a folder based directory system or with its own library.

With the folders, it's great because I can navigate through them from within the program. At the same time, I also do have its fantastic library system there to help me if I need to find something. But if you don't want to, you really don't even have to scan for your music. You can use it just as well with only the directory system.

Hm, i will definetly check it out

I never even cared for the codec... So you tell me that my ripped 320kbps mp3's with Media Player and/or Creative Audio Suite may be sub par compared to Lame encoded 320kbps mp3's

Damn, i want the best possible 320mp3 sound quality. What program shall i use to secure that or can i pick the right codec in audio rippers manually? Which codec is the best?

[Jay 37,352]

LAME is the best. Just download LAMEdrop. Its freeware

[chinaismine 64]

I rip all my CDs into FLAC using EAC. My goal is to have a perfect digital archival copy so I never have to take the CD out of its case again. If I want smaller files (for mobile listening), I just re-encode from the FLAC.

[Wojo 2,453]

EAC won't work on either of my computers.

LAME is the best. Just download LAMEdrop. Its freeware

I noticed that in the Quality Settings in the Encoding Options, the highest quality setting (100) provides approximately 240 kbps. To achieve anything higher, like 320, requires manual entry in the "Bitrate" section.

Jay, how do you set your files? I encoded a file both ways, and the one encoded at maximum VBR fluctuated between 192 and 320, while the other stayed constant at 320 and was two megabytes larger.

I couldn't hear a difference, so is that the jist of the process?

[Jay 37,352]

Hmmm, did you get LamedropXPd? My screen looks like this:

Basically I use the "Quality " option (with the bar all the way to the right) to make VBR mp3s, and the "Bitrate" option (with 320 typed in and CBR checked) to make 320 mp3s.

And yea - thats the whole point. 320kbps files are larger than they need to be. Because it's encoding at 320kbps the entire time, even if it doesnt need to be - ie, its a moment of silence, a moment with just a beat, etc. VBR scans every little section of the music and determines the maximum bitrate needed for every one. So the file size is smaller, and it sounds really good

[Wojo 2,453]

That is what I downloaded. I wasn't sure if the settings you defined will make it CBR or VBR, but I couldn't hear a difference with my VBR experiment. I'm pretty sure that with my $20 headphones, and cheap $10 FM transmitter in my car, I still won't hear a difference.

But I do like how easy the drag/drop interface is.

[Morn 8]

Less that 192 is not listenable. 255 AAC is good. Apple lossless if it's something I love. But limited space on iPhone, can't yet use lossless for everything until I have like a.. 128GB phone.