iPod users - what is your bit rate of choice?

FunkyT · 4 May 2006 at 23:49

Do you encode your MP3s @ 128Kbps, 192Kbps or some other bit rate?

iBot · 4 May 2006 at 23:53

192 vbr with lame+eac

Anyone who is "ok" with 128 needs better ears/speakers/soundcard

gord · 4 May 2006 at 23:56

whats an iPod.. sounds like sig infringement to me.. <shifty eyes>

pyro · 5 May 2006 at 00:03

iBot said:
192 vbr with lame+eac

Anyone who is "ok" with 128 needs better ears/speakers/soundcard

Oh yes, because the big bass of puff dady's song doesn't sound good on the litle ipod at 128

But yeah 192 is pretty damn good, 128 is ok too as long as you don't have it too loud.

Stellios · 5 May 2006 at 00:03

For me its 128k with my Iriver, or 192k. Im starting to run out of space so all the higher codecs have had to be lowered, and through standard headphones (Sennheisser MX500s) i cant really tell a difference.

FunkyT · 5 May 2006 at 09:28

Thanks for the helpful replies - looks like it's 192Kbps 4tw!

0gami · 5 May 2006 at 09:31

I go for 320k - although thats probably overkill.

FunkyT · 5 May 2006 at 09:34

0gami said:
I go for 320k - although thats probably overkill.

Yes, I think it is dude. The file sizes get a little chunky when you go above 192Kbps

0gami · 5 May 2006 at 09:45

FunkyT said:
Yes, I think it is dude. The file sizes get a little chunky when you go above 192Kbps

Its not so bad for me, I have a 20gb ipod and swap around my music a lot, usually never more than 10gb on there at any one time and thats with mp3's at 320k

If I had a Nano or Shuffle i'd think differently.

welshtom · 5 May 2006 at 10:11

iBot said:
192 vbr with lame+eac

Anyone who is "ok" with 128 needs better ears/speakers/soundcard

128 is fine.
why bother with mp3's just stick raw wav in there if you want quality?

FunkyT · 5 May 2006 at 10:21

Is there a significant benefit in using a higher bit rate than 128Kbps?

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/

I'm not really sure how a lossy compression algorithm can be classed as "CD Quality" :confused:

Meatball · 5 May 2006 at 20:26

Well I use 320Kbit .AACs on iTuns so I'm forced to on iPod even though I can't tell the diff with 320Kbit on my iPod

TooNice · 6 May 2006 at 11:03

FunkyT said:
Is there a significant benefit in using a higher bit rate than 128Kbps?

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/layer3/

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/430/mp3soundquality4zj.jpg

I'm not really sure how a lossy compression algorithm can be classed as "CD Quality"

M'well, that tableis probably several years old. I remember when MP3 first came out, 128kps was indeed considered "CD Quality". But TBH, if you are willing to spend money on non-generic players, and non generic ear/headphones, there is little reason nowadays to not opt for something a little better. If you have to go lossy, then the best quality/size is provided using VBR. LAME @ APS is probably around the size of 192kps, but is theoretically better. Whether you can tell the difference is another matter, but I see little reason not to go for VBR nowadays (early implementations had issues, but it isn't the case nowadays).

pinkacidbootson · 6 May 2006 at 21:56

I honestly can hear barely any difference from 128-320kbps from any audio source/device unless i listen really carefully. My hearing is perfect. Am I missing something?

FunkyT · 17 Jul 2006 at 09:41

Thanks for the helpful replies :cool:

-Ad- · 17 Jul 2006 at 15:03

HAve mine at 320AAC but will convert all of my flacs to 224AAC in a bit as the file sizes fall just below the buffer in the ipod so will help conserve battery life.

james.miller · 17 Jul 2006 at 15:05

192k is what id concider the sweet spot for 90% of the meterial out there. >192 isnt needed for most stuff, and filesize is still small at 192. Also, at 192 its incredibly hard for people to pass a blind test so its as near as dammit to a 1:1 copy sound-wise

id never concider an ipod though

FunkyT · 17 Jul 2006 at 16:01

james.miller said:
192k is what id concider the sweet spot for 90% of the meterial out there. >192 isnt needed for most stuff, and filesize is still small at 192. Also, at 192 its incredibly hard for people to pass a blind test so its as near as dammit to a 1:1 copy sound-wise

id never concider an ipod though

Nice one.

What's your mp3 player of choice Mr Miller?

james.miller · 17 Jul 2006 at 16:25

quality-wise an ipod is great if you intend to use the line out and an external amp. otherwise...its average.

My pick of the week with be the 20gb cowan iaudio m5 @ £159 or m5l @ £169. cheap, loads of space, decent battery life (5 hours on the L) and awsome sound quality.

FunkyT · 17 Jul 2006 at 16:27

james.miller said:
quality-wise an ipod is great if you intend to use the line out and an external amp. otherwise...its average.

My pick of the week with be the 20gb cowan iaudio m5 @ £159. cheap, loads of space, decent battery life and awsome sound quality.

The benefit of the iPod is the availability of 3rd party add ons and "compatibility". I'm thinking specifically for use in the car e.g. Alpine CD/tuner with direct connection, VW iPod factory installations etc etc