Bit Rates

[Janet]

I have printed and read LOR's info sheets regarding music (Ripping music from CDs to 192 Kbps MPC files using Windows XP Media Player 10--dated May 26, 2006 AND Using Windows Audacity Sound Editor with the LAME MP3 Exporter Add-On--dated October 18, 2007) and I am a little confused.

It appears, based on these two articles, that I can use either 192 or 128 Kbps as long as I don't use the DC-MP3 Show Player. Is this correct? If so, which one is the preferred or better choice? I'm totally ignorant about these terms (bit rates, constant bit rates, etc.), and I think I have used both 192 and 128 in past shows. I utilized Audacity to shorten intros and endings, and used Windows XP Media Player to rip from CDs. So is 192 better than 128 just because it's a higher number? And am I risking problems by using them both?

Thank you,

Janet

[-klb-]

As long as you are not using one of the MP3 directors, there is no risk in having a mix and match of different bit rates in different files. Also, as long as you are not using a MP3 director, higher bit rate files, made from CD audio or .wav sources should sound better than lower bit rate sources.

However, there is no point in taking a lower bit rate file, and saving it as a higher bit rate file. You can't recover the detail that the lower bit rate compression removed from the file.

[Janet]

Thank you for the help. I will stick with 192 in the future.

Janet

[ErnieHorning]

128bps is typically acceptable by most people who are not specifically listening to the music just for the sake of the sound. A fair amount of the general public will also think it sounds just fine.

People that listen to music for the content will typically be more picky as to how it sounds. In double blind tests, even with very high end systems, nobody can tell the difference between a CD and 256bps.

With the sound systems and acoustics found in a typical car, 192bps is almost indistinguishable from the original CD recording. So go with 192bps and you will please everyone.

Of course the MP3 will only be as good as the original, so if the recording is an older song that wasn’t digitally re-mastered, it may not sound any different than it would if it was saved at 128bps.

[R Weiland]

ErnieHorning wrote:

128bps is typically acceptable by most people who are not specifically listening to the music just for the sake of the sound. A fair amount of the general public will also think it sounds just fine.

People that listen to music for the content will typically be more picky as to how it sounds. In double blind tests, even with very high end systems, nobody can tell the difference between a CD and 256bps.

With the sound systems and acoustics found in a typical car, 192bps is almost indistinguishable from the original CD recording. So go with 192bps and you will please everyone.

Of course the MP3 will only be as good as the original, so if the recording is an older song that wasn’t digitally re-mastered, it may not sound any different than it would if it was saved at 128bps.

Ernie, I think you dropped the K, you did not mean bits per second, rather Kilobits per second.!

[ErnieHorning]

Yes I meant Kbps. It’s hard to get much done these days with only bps.



I remember when I got my first 300bps modem and thinking wow this is flying!

[Stan B]

Janet wrote:

I have printed and read LOR's info sheets regarding music (Ripping music from CDs to 192 Kbps MPC files using Windows XP Media Player 10--dated May 26, 2006 AND Using Windows Audacity Sound Editor with the LAME MP3 Exporter Add-On--dated October 18, 2007) and I am a little confused.

It appears, based on these two articles, that I can use either 192 or 128 Kbps as long as I don't use the DC-MP3 Show Player. Is this correct? If so, which one is the preferred or better choice? I'm totally ignorant about these terms (bit rates, constant bit rates, etc.), and I think I have used both 192 and 128 in past shows. I utilized Audacity to shorten intros and endings, and used Windows XP Media Player to rip from CDs. So is 192 better than 128 just because it's a higher number? And am I risking problems by using them both?

Thank you,

Janet

Going back to Janet's post. What would be the correct bit rate to use with the MP3 Show Director?

Thanks,

Stan

[Guest wbottomley]

Stan B wrote:

Janet wrote:

I have printed and read LOR's info sheets regarding music (Ripping music from CDs to 192 Kbps MPC files using Windows XP Media Player 10--dated May 26, 2006 AND Using Windows Audacity Sound Editor with the LAME MP3 Exporter Add-On--dated October 18, 2007) and I am a little confused. 

It appears, based on these two articles, that I can use either 192 or 128 Kbps as long as I don't use the DC-MP3 Show Player.  Is this correct?  If so, which one is the preferred or better choice?  I'm totally ignorant about these terms (bit rates, constant bit rates, etc.), and I think I have used both 192 and 128 in past shows. I utilized Audacity to shorten intros and endings, and used Windows XP Media Player to rip from CDs.  So is 192 better than 128 just because it's a higher number?  And am I risking problems by using them both?

Thank you,

Janet

Going back to Janet's post. What would be the correct bit rate to use with the MP3 Show Director?

Thanks,

Stan

 

As the manual says... 128kbs constant bit rate.