The best MP3 VBR preference when encoding audio?

[Xpenguin17]

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

Even the simplest of songs can't be encoded in 32 without an audible loss in quality! You must be able to hear the difference between a 32kbps song and a 128kbps one - there's no comparison really.

Not all songs bear identical content that needs the same bit rate, some are more redundant than others and can be encoded in 32 with slight audible loss in quality. I got a couple examples but don't feel like draggin' 'em outta my locked drive.

For now, try:

000123912301239.Rar by Bigupload.Com

Seriously, is there a difference? When I encoded it on ABR 192 the final output was 136 cuz it's so goddamn redundant. This proves that going over 128 is pointless.

[MunkeyQ]

Please tell me you can hear the difference between those two songs in that rar archive! The one encoded in 64 really does sound bad, the bass is boomy and the higher frequencies are either lost or muddled together. There's no point doing a double blind test as the difference is clear.

What headphones/speakers are you listening to your music through?

[Xpenguin17]

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

Please tell me you can hear the difference between those two songs in that rar archive! The one encoded in 64 really does sound bad, the bass is boomy and the higher frequencies are either lost or muddled together. There's no point doing a double blind test as the difference is clear.

No difference... if I concentrate really hard I notice the "echo" is somewhat gone and the intermediate cymbal percussion not as audible.

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

What headphones/speakers are you listening to your music through?

"Genius" headset with surround-sound simulation and an analog volume control.

[MunkeyQ]

No offence, but I think something is still up with your hearing. (or your headphones ). There's a clear difference between the two, everything is less defined and muffled like it's being played down a phone line.

I have a feeling the surround sound simulation may also be distorting your sound.

I can hear a difference between 128k and a 320k song quite well - I'm surprised you can't.

[Xpenguin17]

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

No offence, but I think something is still up with your hearing. (or your headphones ). There's a clear difference between the two, everything is less defined and muffled like it's being played down a phone line.

Oh shit, the 64 kbps one was at 24 KHz... I meant it to stay at 44.1. That's why it sounded different.

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

I have a feeling the surround sound simulation may also be distorting your sound.

I can switch it off anytime, but I usually keep it on cuz it fixes the dullness. If anything, it enhances the audio, no distortion.

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

I can hear a difference between 128k and a 320k song quite well - I'm surprised you can't.

Well thats one of the few songs I listen on 64, most are at 128 and they obviously would sound different on 64, except this one. Nobody I know uses 320, 90% of music on Kazaa is encoded at 128 bitrate.

In addition, you don't hear nobody complainin' about the 64k mono default on YouTube videos.

[jesus_is_my_homeboy69]

Every song I have is 320.
__________________
†Jesus†

[MunkeyQ]

Originally Posted by Xpenguin17

In addition, you don't hear nobody complainin' about the 64k mono default on YouTube videos.

People don't generally use YouTube for listening to music. Unless you have shitty speakers/are tone deaf. 64k is more than enough to hear the crunch when a skater's head hits the ground but for music it's junk.

[RAOVQ]

i encode average bitrate of 200. anything under 160 usually sounds like complete shit and is deleted.

to those who can't tell, count yourselves lucky or get better speakers/headphones. i don't use kazaa/bearshare/whatever for that simple reason; most of the stuff is encoded at far too low a bitrate to be enjoyable to listen to.

[Xpenguin17]

Originally Posted by MunkeyQ

People don't generally use YouTube for listening to music. Unless you have shitty speakers/are tone deaf. 64k is more than enough to hear the crunch when a skater's head hits the ground but for music it's junk.

I just searched a couple popular music vids right now on YouTube and each of 'em averaged a million views.

In addition to 64k, you do realize that MP3 is outdated as hell (1987) and not the most economic format today. It only makes one pass and only relies on psychoacoustics and bit-masking to achieve the compression. Try WMA, I dunno the specs but I believe it employs a multipass technique when encoding the fuckers to detect repeating parts of the song. The result: 64 kbps stereo with quality as high as a 128+ kbps MP3.

I still stick to MP3, I dunno why. I'm just an asshole like that.