What bit rate/codec do you encode in?

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Original poster
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
I searched the forums and found an old thread on this subject, but it had been archived and could not be replied to; therefore, I started a new thread.

I encode my music using AAC at 80 kpbs (stereo, using iTunes 4.7). Yes that's right - 80 kbps! I haven't yet found a song that sounds bad to my ears at that bit rate. The only reason I didn't go with 64 kbps is because I don't like the quality at that low of a bit rate.
 

MacDawg

macrumors Core
Mar 20, 2004
19,708
4,274
"Between the Hedges"
wrldwzrd89 said:
I searched the forums and found an old thread on this subject, but it had been archived and could not be replied to; therefore, I started a new thread.

I encode my music using AAC at 80 kpbs (stereo, using iTunes 4.7). Yes that's right - 80 kbps! I haven't yet found a song that sounds bad to my ears at that bit rate. The only reason I didn't go with 64 kbps is because I don't like the quality at that low of a bit rate.
Most of mine is 128, but hey, if it works for you, go for it!
 

wordmunger

macrumors 603
Sep 3, 2003
5,125
2
North Carolina
I rip AAC at 160 kbps because that's where I can hear a difference. I mainly listen on the stereo, though, not through computer speakers or headphones, so that may account for the difference.
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
I go for AAC 192 kbps - best compromise between quality and file size for me, and I can't really hear any difference above that.
 

Jovian9

macrumors 68000
Feb 19, 2003
1,950
99
Planet Zebes
My favorites are in Apple Lossless
Near favorites higher than 128AAC
Most music is 128AAC
Music not listened to very much is a little less than 128AAC
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
320 kbps MP3s.

Would love to go to Apple Lossless but will need a new hard-drive or two for that...

320: because I listen a lot on Sennheisers and to me, the difference is noticeable between CD & MP3.

MP3: because I do occasionally share my music and some mixes end up in friends cars.
 

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Original poster
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
paxtonandrew said:
128 KBPS AAC. I don't like Mp3, Apple Lossless takes up too much space, and AIFF is one to experiment with.

I honestly don't notice a drop in quality between the 128 Kbps, and 192+ Kbps AAC.
I was using Apple Lossless before, but my music library was just growing too darn quickly in size, so I switched to 80 kbps AAC. You might want to consider trying out AAC+ once Apple makes it available to iTunes users (which I suspect won't happen until either iTunes 5 is released or Tiger is released).
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
i use AAC 160 kbps to rip the original CD. they are like an archive now. if i ever want regular music CDs, i'd make them from these.

i then converted some of those archived ones to AAC 128 kbps to fit more songs on the iPod mini.
 

evil_santa

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2003
893
0
London, England
192kbs mp3, (have os 9 mac at work so only plays mp3). All music is played from itunes or ipod, original CD are boxed away, to save space in the house!
 

MattG

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2003
3,760
212
Asheville, NC
320kbps AAC...even if I can't hear the difference between 320 and a lower bitrate, what the hell -- I've got the space for it. I can always go down from there if I have the need to.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
i can tell the difference between apple lossless and 128AAC, but i dont have the room for the lossless, and im sure a higher bit rate might be just a bit better, but i dont have that much room left on my 15gig ipod and its too much of a hassle to figure out what i want on there and what i dont, so i will stick with 128AAC for the vast majority of my music for now, who knows if i get a nice new ipod or a huge external hardrive eventually i might consider it, but im satisfied
 

mc68k

macrumors 68000
Apr 16, 2002
1,996
0
128 AAC

mp3 is too old a technology for me to use it anymore

anything high quality like pink floyd or radiohead i burn to CD

for listening at home i listen to the actual CD through headphones. for car driving i listen to the AACs because its hard to tell subtle differences in the audio with road noise
 

russed

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2004
1,613
0
192kbps aac all the way! just seems nice without taking up too much hdd space
 

dotnina

macrumors 6502a
Aug 19, 2004
856
0
So almost everyone here uses AAC?

I just started encoding in MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR) ... most of my songs end up being about 200 kbps.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
dotnina said:
So almost everyone here uses AAC?

I just started encoding in MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR) ... most of my songs end up being about 200 kbps.
kind of a strange statement... VBR varies the bit rate (as the name implies) so that most bitrates are used in parts of music where they are most needed. you supply the target overall bitrate, so i don't understand what you mean by songs "ending up about 200 kbps." :confused:
 

MattG

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2003
3,760
212
Asheville, NC
jxyama said:
kind of a strange statement... VBR varies the bit rate (as the name implies) so that most bitrates are used in parts of music where they are most needed. you supply the target overall bitrate, so i don't understand what you mean by songs "ending up about 200 kbps." :confused:
I think she's saying in terms of the size of the songs, on average, they end up working out to being 200kbps...she's not talking about the sound quality.
 

jalagl

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2003
802
1
Costa Rica
192Kb mp3, so I can listen to them on my car. I actually used to do 128Kb mp3s, but I moved to 192Kb because they sounded really bad on my car (even though I couldn't tell the difference on my computer's speakers).
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
MattG said:
I think she's saying in terms of the size of the songs, on average, they end up working out to being 200kbps...she's not talking about the sound quality.
but the size of the songs is directly related to the target bitrate, which you provide. size of the song should approximately be target bitrate times the length of the song. it was my understanding that when you use VBR, you specify the target bitrate yourself. that's why i found the statement of bitrate "ending up" to be a certain value to be kind of funny because it should be provided by the user.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
190kbps, but eventually I'll go to Apple lossless. Hopefully ITMS will eventually offer Apple Lossless downloads too. When I can get all of my CDs on my computer in the lossless format I'll trade them in. Woo hoo, less crap.
 

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Original poster
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
Woohoo, just bought a 250 GB external HD today. Back to Apple Lossless I go! (Unfortunately, I must re-rip everything now. All my effort to convert my files to 80 kbps AAC was wasted.)
 

dotnina

macrumors 6502a
Aug 19, 2004
856
0
jxyama said:
but the size of the songs is directly related to the target bitrate, which you provide. size of the song should approximately be target bitrate times the length of the song. it was my understanding that when you use VBR, you specify the target bitrate yourself. that's why i found the statement of bitrate "ending up" to be a certain value to be kind of funny because it should be provided by the user.
Oops, sorry jxyama, you're exactly right. I don't know what I was thinking when I posted! I looked at my iTunes songs and felt compelled to report a bitrate! ;)

Indeed, I do have a target bitrate ... 192 kbps. :)
 

Inkmonkey

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2003
435
1
Calgary
Great Squinting Squirrel Monkeys! 192 MP3. I struggled with deciding. I think I decided on MP3 because I at times burn MP3 cds that play in stereos or DVD players.