audio quality and bitrate

S

smartmind0007

Broken In
i have recently purchased new 2.1 speakers. i love listening to songs hindi as well as english. i would like to know about audio bitrate and its effect on the audio quality.. :) thanx in adv
 
doomgiver

doomgiver

Warframe
bitrate is roughly the amount of info stored per second in a track/song.
it varies from 320 to 64 kbps
usually, 128 kbps is used to minimize filesize and quality loss, while 192 kbps is acceptable for normal audio devices, while audiophiles like me like to listen songs in full 320 kbps :p/

if your speakers cost less than 2k bucks, it doesnt matter if you use 128 or 320 kbps. just make sure its above 128 kbps, else quality degrades rapidly with decreasing bitrates

Bit rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sarath

Sarath

iDota
256kbps. Thats what your bitrate should be. Studies show humans cannot differentiate between 256 and 320 (source Engadget).

But most people still get 320kbps including me, just so as to not take any chances and for the psychological satisfaction :D

So to summarise get 256 or 320kbps.
 
sriharsha_madineni

sriharsha_madineni

Cyborg Agent
Well... I really didn't find any difference between a high bitrate flac and 320kbps version of same tracks when I did a blind test, stuck to 320kbps since then.
 
prabhu.wali

prabhu.wali

prabhu.wali
"Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did."
 
Zangetsu

Zangetsu

I am the master of my Fate.
prabhu.wali said:
"Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
Click to expand...

due to virus or vaporization? :grin:
 
sriharsha_madineni

sriharsha_madineni

Cyborg Agent
prabhu.wali said:
"Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did."
Click to expand...

So let's say I had a 128kbps mp3's from 2000, they should be obliterated by now right, as per that theory :D

So here's a mp3 that I had since 2001, and the waveform should be flat as per that theory, right!!!

*img210.imageshack.us/img210/8373/123iuy.th.jpg

*img833.imageshack.us/img833/4429/88964294.th.jpg

Jokes apart, I do agree that FLAC is better than mp3, but practically you can't find much difference unless you have a studio setup and rabbit ears.

Next time, try it before you copy paste blogs :)

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.
Click to expand...

*holy****ingshit40000.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-verdict-on-flac-vs-mp3.html
 
Zangetsu

Zangetsu

I am the master of my Fate.
@prabhu.wali: I've never encountered this practically the loss of kbps in Mp3....
& u have written worse in optical media...then Planet M will have to shutdown the old year stocks of Music CDs....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom