Topic: Curse you, itunes! / Can I really tell the difference between bitrates? (Read 11392 times)

october1983 · « **on:** 21 Nov 2007, 15:56 »

I recently put a load of mp3s I'd ripped from various CDs onto my iPod, and have listened to them a bit for the last few days. For some reason, listening to most of the albums, they seemed a little...off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. Looking on iTunes now, I noticed that for some reason they've all got a bitrate of 96kbps, and I think this might be why. God knows how iTunes ended up with that setting - why would anyone in their right mind rip mp3s at anything less than 128? I'm pretty sure that above that I can't notice a different, but now the 96kbps thing is really bugging me.

I really can't be bothered to rip all these albums again, but I kind of want to. Am I really hearing the difference of a low bitrate, or am I just letting my mind screw around with me?

tommydski · « **Reply #1 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 16:07 »

I can definitely tell anything lower than 160kpbs and my ears are fucked.

I don't think you're imagining it at all. I know a lot of people claim to not be able to tell the difference between 128kpbs and above but I simply don't believe people wouldn't be able to identify 96kpbs. There's a very audible difference in clarity.

october1983 · « **Reply #2 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 16:16 »

Yeah, I think you're right. I've set it to 196 now to be on the safe side, and plan to rerip any good albums that I have at 96. As soon as I can be bothered..

Kai · « **Reply #3 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 17:53 »

I can notice when something is 96 kbs. That's roughly it. After that it is not really too important to my ears.

IronOxide · « **Reply #4 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 17:56 »

I rip at V0 when I can because it is a good quality on the off chance I want to do something with the song (mixes, editing, etc.), but it doesn't take as much space as a 320 rip, although I can rarely hear the difference above 192 on my listening items of choice.

Tom · « **Reply #5 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 18:12 »

for an odd reason, anything below 128kbs gives me a headache.

mattgcn · « **Reply #6 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 20:04 »

Usually I can listen to horribly low bitrates and barely notice. Or I just tune out quality difference. I have a bunch of music that's just friends with somewhat good condenser mics making music. And a couple of YouTube rips *shot*

Edible · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 20:34 »

Meh its itunes, what do you expect...

Mnementh · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 20:37 »

I definitely notice when something is that low. I tend to rip everything at 320 or V0 (using iTunes-LAME). I figure that way if I ever invest in a high end audio system I'll never notice the difference.

And I have a lot of space.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 20:41 »

I always rip at 320, too, because I can hear the difference between it and 256. It's not that big a difference unless you turn your music up a bit (which I do)

october1983 · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 20:46 »

I didn't notice for so long because I've been listening to everything through my laptop's speaker ever since my other speakers went mysteriously missing after a party. I really need to sort that out.

kablaaamo · « **Reply #11 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 22:36 »

I rip at 256; I have two homes (student apt, parents' basement) and at one of the two, I have a pretty nice stereo. On that, I can definitely hear the difference up to 160....

But then I still rip at 256. It's like chocolate. Sure, you can't really tell the difference in quality after a certain point, but Godiva is still so good.

Mnementh · « **Reply #12 on:** 21 Nov 2007, 22:37 »

Quote from: Dimmukane on 21 Nov 2007, 20:41

I always rip at 320, too, because I can hear the difference between it and 256. It's not that big a difference unless you turn your music up a bit (which I do)

Right now I'm just using an old iTrip, but I imagine I'll really notice the difference when I get the iPod hooked up directly to my car stereo.

Spinless · « **Reply #13 on:** 22 Nov 2007, 06:04 »

Hah, just a few months ago when I smashed my laptop, I was able to back up about half my music to my PC. That's about 10gb. I thought I'd be able to get all my music back from the old laptop, but this wasn't the case. Don't ask me how or why I did this (it involves software from Creative if you're interested), but I somehow managed to convert all my music on the PC from 256kbps mp3s to WMA files ranging from 32kbps to 64 kbps.
I could definitely tell the the difference. It was about 2 months I was listening to this music until I got a new laptop and started to replace it all.

muteKi · « **Reply #14 on:** 22 Nov 2007, 06:33 »

Yeah, 96 is usually too low for me, but I do it if I'm ripping off an old album where the source data isn't too high in audio quality.
128 is usually near-lossless for me, but if some music is high on cymbal use, the compression artifacts are noticeable.

It depends on the source material, sort of like how a jpg of a picture taken with a camera looks good but a jpg of a rip of my desktop or a hand-drawn image through, say, photoshop has more noticeable artifacts as a result.

Beren · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 Nov 2007, 06:53 »

On my shitty computer speakers I can't tell the difference between anything over 160. On my headphones.. I think I can tell the difference between 192 and 256 most of the time, but I may just be fooling myself.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Nov 2007, 19:44 »

I can tell the difference between 190 and 128. I have a lot of mp3s from various places at 128 and they definitely sound worse than similar songs of higher bitrates. I have decent speakers/headphones though, so maybe that's the reason.

Narr · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Nov 2007, 21:26 »

I rip at 256, even though I really don't have the "space" to justify it. After having listened to higher quality MP3s for awhile, I can tell when it's lower than 196 pretty much right away. I also tend to listen to music loudly so it sounds extremely washy if I skimp on the quality.

GenericName · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Nov 2007, 13:27 »

I used to use Limewire to get music, so I didn't often mind when it was a low quality because, frankly, I couldn't get a lot of really better stuff.
Nowadays, it's hard for me to listen to a song that's under 162, because the distortion is just so distracting.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #19 on:** 24 Nov 2007, 15:29 »

I don't think I've ever even heard an mp3 that was lower than 128.

I usually can't tell the difference, even with headphones on. Then again, I play in a very very loud psychedelic rock band and I do not wear earplugs.

Oddly enough, though, I can still hear very well at distance. Maybe, like the dude from Blue Cheer, my eardrums have developed calluses.

John Curtin · « **Reply #20 on:** 24 Nov 2007, 16:51 »

Have you ever visited a band's myspace before? As far as I know Myspace music is 96kbps MP3.

Tom · « **Reply #21 on:** 24 Nov 2007, 17:34 »

and just 'bout anything else on youtube.

casull · « **Reply #22 on:** 26 Nov 2007, 21:33 »

I can tell up to a certain point... oink's standards were good enough for me. Even with grados through a good sound card and amp, I don't really hear differences too much past 192 VBR

Beren · « **Reply #23 on:** 29 Nov 2007, 13:30 »

I'm ripping Vinyl into 320 now and convincing myself I can hear a difference on my headphones.

I'm so full of shit, though.

VirtualWolf · « **Reply #24 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 02:28 »

Quote from: tommydski on 21 Nov 2007, 16:07

I can definitely tell anything lower than 160kpbs and my ears are fucked.

I don't think you're imagining it at all. I know a lot of people claim to not be able to tell the difference between 128kpbs and above but I simply don't believe people wouldn't be able to identify 96kpbs. There's a very audible difference in clarity.

Aye, all my stuff is ripped as 160Kbps AAC. It's a good balance between quality and file size, and I find metal doesn't compress well at 128Kbps.

Beren · « **Reply #25 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 12:52 »

Quote from: Anyways on 29 Nov 2007, 15:36

Well, as long as you're convinced yourself, does it matter if it's a placebo effect?

Nope, I'm gleeful at Coltrane at 320

Der Turm, der Leute frass · « **Reply #26 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 15:16 »

I don't rip cd's at all
not mainly because of the quality but because I got so many, that it would probably take me months to rip them all

Tom · « **Reply #27 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 16:18 »

What does frass mean?

Der Turm, der Leute frass · « **Reply #28 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 16:30 »

Quote from: n0t_r0bert_b0yle!! on 30 Nov 2007, 16:18

What does frass mean?

"frass" is the past simple of "fressen" in 3rd person singular

der turm, der leute frass = the tower that ate people

Tom · « **Reply #29 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 16:38 »

I like how fressen is equated with "feeding" rather than "eating".
I already knew the nouns

Der Turm, der Leute frass · « **Reply #30 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 16:44 »

Quote from: n0t_r0bert_b0yle!! on 30 Nov 2007, 16:38

I like how fressen is equated with "feeding" rather than "eating".
I already knew the nouns

you're right, fressen is normally translated to feeding, not eating.
But "Der Turm, der Leute ass" didn't sound that good to me

Tom · « **Reply #31 on:** 30 Nov 2007, 18:59 »

ass is my favourite simple past conjugation.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Curse you, itunes! / Can I really tell the difference between bitrates? (Read 11392 times)

tommydski

Edible

Mnementh

kablaaamo

Mnementh

Spinless

muteKi

Narr

John Curtin