DJGold

CJ Greiner · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: Ripping to mp3: What Bitrate?

For a long time, 192kbps has been the "standard" by giving very good quality, while still being fairly compact.

Now that larger hard drives are commonplace and disk space is no longer at such a premium, do you find yourselves ripping at higher bitrates?

:?:

jwg · Joined: September 15th, 2004 Posts: 1089 Location: Erie, PA

I still have a 120gb HD in the rackmount and a 160gb with the laptop. I still rip at 160 bitrate. if I were starting out again today ripping, I'd go to 192. In my mind, no need to go higher.

TheBartman47 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:

I use variable bit rate, but it is usually hovering around 192. I select high quality VBR.

dokai · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:

Inspired by Professor Jam, I've been ripping at 320cbr and retaining the .wav file for future migration to FLAC. Lots of stuff in my library is still at 192, though, and will be re-ripped one of these days.

DJ Teddy Bear · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:

Although I still hold that 128bit is good enough, I avoid the debate by sacrificing some disk space for my popular stuff.

My most popular stuff, i.e. about 5% of my library, is ripped using Apple's lossless format. My semi-popular stuff, about 15%, is ripped as MP3 between 160 and 256bit. The rest is 128bit.

For what it's worth, I will accept any claim that you can hear the difference between a CD and 128bit, as long as you admit that it gets harder as you increase the bit rate. But that's in a sound room. In a catering hall with dozens of people talking at the same time? Fuggetaboudit.

eldjdelcaribe · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Ripping to mp3: What Bitrate?

Most people at an event will not even know the diffrence between 128 or higher. After a couple of drinks they won't even notice if you play it at 94. LOL

jbrown157 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Ripping to mp3: What Bitrate?

Per the consensus opinion of my friends here, I ripped my library at 192 and am satisfied with the sound quality. I am able to notice a slight difference between the ripped 192s and the downloaded 128s when played back on the big DJ system. On the home stereo, headphones or computer speakers, I can't tell the difference.

Bryan Durio · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject:

For those of us who can hear a difference, even a small one, re-ripping the most-played tunes at 320 CBR is worth the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we're providing the closest sound to a CD as possible.

I ripped my entire library at 32k-320k VBR so save space, but I've recently been experimenting around with other settings. Encoding at 320 CBR sounds the cleanest and the smoothest. I noticed that highs don't have a sweet, smooth shimmer at lesser encoding rates. The difference is small, but it's there. At 320 CBR, bass response is flatter and the midrange doesn't jump out unnaturally.

Teddy is right: in a noisy venue, the difference is imperceptible. But I don't care. I'm not going to sacrifice a smidgeon of sound quality if I can help it!

jwg · Joined: September 15th, 2004 Posts: 1089 Location: Erie, PA

The only bad part is when the source material is analog (like most of my Time-Life series), the quality may not be there to begin with. I've experimented with higher bitrates on the older songs but it still comes from a poor source. Their newer discs from AM Gold to their current offerings are all digital if I'm not mistaken.

Bryan Durio · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject:

It goes without saying that your file will contain audio that is no better than the source. Only with post-processing will you be able to clean up the audio. There's an old computer term that applies here: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Lossy compression is always a destructive methodology.

Just because something is digital doesn't automatically mean that it's a superior signal! There are many links in the chain that affect the audio. I've got some older analog material that is sonically superior to a lot of the newer digital recordings.

DJ Scott · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Ripping to mp3: What Bitrate?

Just for S**t's and giggles I plugged in a WMA set of songs ripped at 64.
Without an A/B comparisson, the test audience couldn't tell that anything was different. Having played these songs FOREVER..."I" noticed that the high's didn't quite shimmer and the bass was muddy, but there.
The listeners couldn't tell. (I EQed differently on the 64's)
Now....I'm not saying, go out and ripp at 64, but in the end....the general public can't hear the difference in a general standard sound system at a wedding. That's not to say you shouldn't give you client the best possible sound, but SHEESH!!!, all this ripp at ??? in Lossy/Lossless is humorous sometimes.

Just an interesting observation. No need to flame. :)

jwg · Joined: September 15th, 2004 Posts: 1089 Location: Erie, PA

I had a Groom about 3 years ago who was a technology geek. He sets up wireless networks in people's homes and businesses for a living. He swore up and down that the 160cbr I was ripping at was not quality at all. He suggested VBR around 320. At the end of the reception I asked him how he though it sounded. He said making the change in your bitrate made a difference. I told him what he heard the entire reception was 160cbr. The look on his face was priceless.

You're right, Scott. The conversations about ripping MP3s can get very humorous at times.

CJ Greiner · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:

You know, you all make a good point -- can you really tell the difference?

Unless you play clips one after another to do a true comparison... most people really don't know what you're playing, or if they're missing anything.

I guess I was just looking to see if there was a new standard above the 192kbps.....

I might just stick with what I've got for now unless I find a lossless algorithm that I really like. Even then, I'll have to have multiple copies to be compatible with multiple DJ programs.

MusicDoctorDJ · Joined: May 30th, 2004 Posts: 476 Location: Denver, CO

But is it really about whether or not the audience can tell the difference?

Or is it about whether or not we just want to have our music files as good as possible without going overboard?

I'm just getting ready to start ripping all of my CD's to mp3's (not going PCDJ yet, just backing up my CD's)!

I'm trying to figure out what I should rip at before I get started . . .

I was planning on 192 . . . bit should I go 320?

Lossy or lossless?

:?:

I guess what I find somewhat amusing is that I've been saying for the last couple of years that it was just a matter of time before mp3's would be replaced with another format.

It sounds like that time is almost here!

TheBartman47 · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:

For me, I can usually hear the difference between 128 and 192. 160 can go either way, but it usually is good enough. However, regardless of what bitrate, what I can't stand is hearing that "swirly sound" of digital artifacts in the compresson from using a bad encoder or not having the settings for the encoder right. I use EAC to rip which uses an external encoder engine to do the MP3 compressing, and I use LAME for that. I've always gotten excellent results with LAME encoder.

MusicDoctorDJ · Joined: May 30th, 2004 Posts: 476 Location: Denver, CO

I just ripped a CD at 320 mp3pro.

Is that a good format to record in?

And should I make sure I do my entire library that way?

jwg · Joined: September 15th, 2004 Posts: 1089 Location: Erie, PA

I use Audiograbber with a beta version of the Lame encoder which came out this year. 3.98 maybe?

320 is a bit high for an mp3. You'll suck up alot of hard drive space pretty fast if you have any less than a 250gb drive.

I am confused about the mp3pro part...

MusicDoctorDJ · Joined: May 30th, 2004 Posts: 476 Location: Denver, CO

I'm under the understanding that mp3Pro is a lossless format.

Not sure though . . . anybody here know?

Is 224 or 256 bitrate good enough, or as good as 320?

DJ Teddy Bear

MusicDoctorDJ wrote: Is 224 or 256 bitrate good enough, or as good as 320? "Good enough" is a subjective question. "As good as" is a definate NO.

Obviously, the higher the bitrate, the better the quality. But it brings us to the opposite of the first question: At what point does it become "overkill"?

Doc: You say you're doing it for backup purposes. Details please. Are you ripping everything so that if a CD is missing you can burn a replacement? Or are you ripping everything, and creating replacements immediately?

If its for the first option, that of burning a replacement, then you should test that theory right now. Make sure the format you selected will produce a good replacement audio CD. Select a different format and compare again. Also use a little math to figure out if your hard drive has the capacity for what you want.

If its for the second option, that of creating replacements immediately and then perhaps USING the spares at gigs while the originals stay safe at home, then you should use regular WAV files temporarily to produce exact copies, THEN convert the WAV or MP3. Although this is two steps, it usually doesn't take much emor time than ripping in one step.

In fact, htis two step process can save YOU time. Since taking a WAV file off a CD is much faster than ripping in one step, you can do a bunch much quicker. Then batch convert to MP3 when you are away from the computer.

Dj Sean · Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject:

I use 320 MP3 for all my favorites, and popular stuff, then 192, then VBR

MP3 sounds fine and is the most compatable format.

Ceremony music should be the highest as it is used when the whole place gets quite, so you can hear the difference then.