Some time ago I was encoding Mp3s at 128 kbps and that was enough for my ears. But now I started looking for better quality and making experiments at different bitrates.
So; I would like to learn your favorite bitrate.

192 is the minimum I like for MP3s but I have since changed over to OGGs.

I usually use 160 (sometimes with VBR), and PaleHorse, what is OGG? is this a different sound-codec?

Yes, KaeptnOvi, it's full name being Ogg Vorbis. It appears to achieve better quality than mp3 at the same bitrate, but the encoding is much, much slower.

I encode at at least 192, but I don't encode that much. I can hardly stand 128 kbit mp3s, which is why I'm not a big fan of mp3 at all. While I can listen to them on speakers (especially small computer speakers), putting my headphones on makes me switch to any Audio CD I have. :)

192 is the minimum.
Everything else is just trash.

You definitely hear everything below that rate, the drawbacks are huge. Of course if you just have some PC speakers for playback, then you will probably notice no difference. But to hear real music, one should use a real stereo system and then you will definitely notice.
:D

448Kbit for me only, if it's up to me. If not, I download the highest possible.

448kbit mp3's (MPEG1 layer 3)? :confused:

I thought the highest possible was 320.

It depends onthe codec used for compression. Different codec are optimised for different bitrates. BladeENC shoots for 192 and above, Fraunhoffer Institute (the de facto standard) uses 128, etc. For archive, I pretty much use 192 or 256, even though the file sizes are larger :). But for PC playback, 128 is fine (I run a plain SB16 card).

Originally posted by Lovro
448kbit mp3's (MPEG1 layer 3)? :confused:

I thought the highest possible was 320.

Maybe I'm confusing it with divx or something else.
Anyway I always use the highest possible, and download the highest possible.

Thank you all.
From my experiments; 192 kbps gives the best quality versus size ratio for me.
And a note for IceBlaze; I have a 20 GB HD and only 4 GB left on it. But if you send me a new 120 GB HD as a gift, I would be happy to encode at 448 kbps. ;)

Originally posted by Lovro
Yes, KaeptnOvi, it's full name being Ogg Vorbis. It appears to achieve better quality than mp3 at the same bitrate, but the encoding is much, much slower.I noticed it was slower but I thought that had to do with the fact that I am not able to use my fav MP3 ripper anymore by Xing. :( Damn thing is limited to Win95 and NT! Grrrr...and they still sell it online for 30 bucks!

I noticed it was slower but I thought that had to do with the fact that I am not able to use my fav MP3 ripper anymore by Xing.

Are you talking about Audiocatalyst? If so, Audiograbber is the one behind it. You might try them. I just use whatever DLLs (like BladeEnc, whatever) to do the decoding/coding. They are easy to add, too. :)

I use 320 KBPS so I can burn them, and they will still sound fairly good in my stereo system.

Originally posted by starlifter


Are you talking about Audiocatalyst? If so, Audiograbber is the one behind it. You might try them. I just use whatever DLLs (like BladeEnc, whatever) to do the decoding/coding. They are easy to add, too. :) Yeah, Audiocatalyst. I am now using a free ware ripper that rips to OGGs, which I like better.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
448Kbit for me only, if it's up to me. If not, I download the highest possible.

Not to sound like an ass, but why would you bother to convert them to MP3 format at such a high bit rate? Why not just keep them in .wav format? Your not gaining any edge in file size so why not just keep it in it's native format?

Anyway, I'm a musician and do some home recording, so I encode any of my own stuff at 320, but my 2000+ mp3 collection is at 128. I don't own 6 million dollar speakers, so I can't tell much of a difference. And if there is one, I accept it because of the space I'm saving.

Originally posted by Lostman
I don't own 6 million dollar speakers, so I can't tell much of a difference.$20 headphones will do... ;)

Originally posted by Lostman


Not to sound like an ass, but why would you bother to convert them to MP3 format at such a high bit rate? Why not just keep them in .wav format? Your not gaining any edge in file size so why not just keep it in it's native format?

Anyway, I'm a musician and do some home recording, so I encode any of my own stuff at 320, but my 2000+ mp3 collection is at 128. I don't own 6 million dollar speakers, so I can't tell much of a difference. And if there is one, I accept it because of the space I'm saving.

I save about 10-20 MB in space.

I use VBR, and it averages around 226