Support NeoGAF

[Badabing]

I'm ripping some CDs and I'm just curious if 128 K bits a second is a good enough rate? I thought CD quality was 192kb/s or something... so can you rip CDs at a higher bit rate, and would it improve sound quality thusly? This shit confuses me..

I should also mention that I have a shit CD ripper, and that the maximum bit rate it allows for is 128kb/s. Can anyone recommend a good CD ripper?

 

[Great King Bowser]

Personally I can hear the difference, all my CDs are ripped a 192kbps.

It's objective though, I have all my mp3s at 192kbps on my mp3 player. But I also guess it depends on the headphones/speakers you're using. I can only really hear the difference when I'm using my Shure e2cs.

 

[Shogmaster]

I'm ripping some CDs and I'm just curious if 128 K bits a second is a good enough rate? I thought CD quality was 192kb/s or something... so can you rip CDs at a higher bit rate, and would it improve sound quality thusly? This shit confuses me..

On your average earbud headphones, 128kb/s MP3 is more than fine. If you have $200+ Sennhausers of something, then you'd know the difference between that 128kb/s version and a 320kb/s version (although 192kb/s wil show the difference too).

 

[Badabing]

I'm wearing Labtec LT-835's. Not great headphones, but I can definitely hear the difference between 128kb/s and 192kb/s.

My friend put some STP albums on my computer at 207kb/s, and those sound amazing. But the GnR stuff at 128kb/s is not up to snuff at all. Damn.

 

[Shogmaster]

You answered youself. Why did you need us too tell you what you already knew? *annoyed*

 

[goodcow]

I rip to WMA lossless.

 

[Naked Snake]

128kbps is shit. Go with at least 192.

 

[border]

If you can't tell the difference, then who gives a shit?

 

[TheDrowningMan]

I don't have overly expensive earphones but I tend to rip my CDs to HD at 320kbps. It's hard for me to tolerate anything less when I have the CDs to compare to. If it's something I've downloaded and don't have on CD at that point, it's not so bad if it's significantly less.

 

[Shogmaster]

I rip to WMA lossless.

I only recently discovered WMA Lossless option in the WMP. It seems slightly more efficient than Monkeys Audio (.ape). Am I right or am I off base?

 

[Koshiro]

128kbps is shit. Go with at least 192.

This is correct. 192 is the best IMO for size:quality ratio. If you don't listen to MP3s often then you wont notice the loss of quality with 128, but if you're like me and regularily listen to mp3s, 128 sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[SHOCKIE]

How many kbps is CD quality sound?

 

[Chairman85]

How many kbps is CD quality sound?

1411 kbps is literally the PCM stream found on CDs.

 

[SHOCKIE]

1411 kbps is literally the PCM stream found on CDs.

Thank's.

 

[aoi tsuki]

I rip to WMA lossless.

Can you rerip those back to the original WAVs? That's part of the reason i use FLAC. Lossless, and if something better comes along, i can just decode my FLACs back to WAV instead of reripping a hundred or so CDs.

 

[jobber]

Variable Bitrate > 192kbs

 

[Shogmaster]

Can you rerip those back to the original WAVs? That's part of the reason i use FLAC. Lossless, and if something better comes along, i can just decode my FLACs back to WAV instead of reripping a hundred or so CDs.

It's called lossless for a reason. All lossless formats, like FLAC, Monkeys, and WMA Lossless should let you go back to WAV without losing data.

 

[Chairman85]

Variable Bitrate > 192kbs

This man speaks the truth.

 

[goodcow]

Can you rerip those back to the original WAVs? That's part of the reason i use FLAC. Lossless, and if something better comes along, i can just decode my FLACs back to WAV instead of reripping a hundred or so CDs.

Yeah, I can just drag them into Goldwave/Audition, or mass convert with dBPowerAmp.

 

[Desperado]

If you can't tell the difference, then who gives a shit?

hah, yeah i don't hear a difference so all of mine are 128kbps.

 

[snapty00]

128 is fine for just about all of mine. The very highest I go is 192. I just see NO difference after that, except that the file is larger.

 

[Grimlock]

I should also mention that I have a shit CD ripper, and that the maximum bit rate it allows for is 128kb/s. Can anyone recommend a good CD ripper?

Have you tried CDex?

FWIW, I only do 128k when I'm ripping to WMA. Sounds a lot better to me than an equivalent-sized mp3.

 

[crawlingpeter]

Variable Bitrate > 192kbs

Absolutely.

--aps is sufficient for me

 

[Shinobi]

128kb is fine with me...all I've got are twenty dollar Panasonic Shockwave headphones, so it makes little difference. Anything bigger then 192kb simply isn't worth the bother, unless that's all there is.

 

[Mejilan]

I'll take 160 if I have no choice. 128 makes me cry.

I'm quite partial to high quality VBRs, however.

 

[NotMSRP]

My headphones suck. I can't tell the difference.

 

[aoi tsuki]

It's called lossless for a reason. All lossless formats, like FLAC, Monkeys, and WMA Lossless should let you go back to WAV without losing data.

i asked because someone was telling me that they had decoded their Apple Lossless files back to WAVs and noticed changes (not necessarily resulting in quality loss) in the new WAVs. i didn't know if it was a fluke, and i couldn't find anything on the web to explain it, but i never knew for sure.

And for the record, when i encode MP3s, i use 192kbps. i haven't bothered with any of the tweaked settings since i so rarely use MP3s now. It's only when someone wants a song in MP3 format.

 

[Red Dolphin]

Variable Bitrate > 192kbs

I personally rip to 192kbs and about 4 months ago re-ripped all my music so it was all 192 as there were songs that were 128 and other bitrates.

I've heard variable bitrate is pretty good but I don't think I can be bothered re-ripping my entire music collection again. What quality of variable bitrate do you guys use? I don't know much about it apart from the fact that the song has a higher bitrate at more complex parts of the song and a lower bitrate during silence or less complex parts.

 

[Shogmaster]

i asked because someone was telling me that they had decoded their Apple Lossless files back to WAVs and noticed changes (not necessarily resulting in quality loss) in the new WAVs. i didn't know if it was a fluke, and i couldn't find anything on the web to explain it, but i never knew for sure.

Maybe they did it wrong that one time? If the subsequent recoding into WAVs were fine, then that's only thing I can think of.

 

[jobbidiar]

Variable Bitrate > 192kbs

anything less than this and you are kidding yourself imho