What bitrate do you use? (2011), MP3, AAC, Vorbis, MPC and others. |
Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules - No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service
  |
What bitrate do you use? (2011), MP3, AAC, Vorbis, MPC and others. |
 Aug 20 2011, 22:37
Post
#51
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 8-March 11 Member No.: 88816  |
At PC with studio headphones: FLAC or MP3 320 kb/s... bottommost MP3 V0 ... I do not like lowpass on my files.
For my car hifi MP3 V2, that's enough. Signal-to-noise ratio is not that good in my car. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 24 2011, 22:29
Post
#52
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 6-August 11 Member No.: 92812 |
QUOTE (LANjackal @ Jun 16 2011, 08:48)  I use LAME -V0, which I think puts me in the ~260kbps MP3 slot I've started to use -V0 as well, though it seems to usually stay between 180-210 kbps sometimes, and usually doesn't get above 220 kbps... hopefully, I'm not doing anything wrong. The kbps was even lower before I switched to "slow" ripping v0 (I use dbpoweramp). I used to rip everything to 256 kbps CBR. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2011, 07:28
Post
#53
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 452 Joined: 31-May 04 From: Czech Rep. Member No.: 14430 |
It depends on the genre you mostly listen to. Some music requires lower bitrate to reach the same fidelity.
-------------------- HD 238 Sansa Clip+ Vorbis q6; HD 380 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2011, 10:29
Post
#54
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 3-March 05 Member No.: 20320 |
FLAC for my archive, mp3 -V4 for mobile use. Average bitrate for 11426 (almost completely self-ripped) mp3s: 153kbit/s.
Don't see a reason to switch to a post-mp3-codec because mp3 can sound as good as a cd (at least with -V2 and above) and no other codec is as widely supported and accepted. @krafty: Copies on dvd? Are you serious? An external hdd lasts longer, is cheaper (per GB) and is way more comfortable (and smaller and faster and ...). |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2011, 06:53
Post
#55
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 11-March 09 From: MA, USA Member No.: 67856 |
This has kept me happy.
Music: Archive to Flac, and MP3 (LAME) -V2 -q0 --lowpass 19.7 for on the go. Audiobooks: AAC (Nero) -q 0.22 and MP3 (LAME) -V9 -q0 --lowpass 17 -b56 This post has been edited by marcusm: Oct 9 2011, 06:55 |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2011, 07:35
Post
#56
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 17-May 09 From: Panama Member No.: 69900 |
All my CD collection is duplicated in FLAC and all music I download I try to acquire in FLAC from downloads. After I have them like that I transcode to Ogg Vorbis q5
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2011, 13:04
Post
#57
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 1-March 06 Member No.: 28173 |
foobar2000:
qtaacenc --cvbr 64 --he - %d |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2011, 23:44
Post
#58
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 18-April 11 Member No.: 89900 |
Celt 0.11.2 with fb2k
celtenc --bitrate 64 %s %d extension file: oga and flac, Tak 2.2.0 use for archival |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2011, 04:10
Post
#59
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 14-April 06 Member No.: 29512 |
AAC:
Qaac @ (~100kbps) for my phone Lossless: Zip/WavPack (zip.wv) for PC playback and archiving with AR/log/art/etc... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 3 2012, 02:30
Post
#60
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 2-January 12 Member No.: 96170 |
I know this thread is old, but here's what I use now:
Rip CDs to FLAC with foobar2000 for archive, these are put on my external 1TB HDD. Encode to V2 or V0 depending on music complexity for portable use, latest LAME version is always used  . |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2012, 12:28
Post
#61
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 913 Joined: 22-October 01 From: the Netherlands Member No.: 335 |
QUOTE (musicfan321 @ Jan 3 2012, 03:30) I know this thread is old It probably should be closed so we can gather new statistics in a new poll. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 4 2012, 13:32
Post
#62
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1315 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Argentina, Bs As Member No.: 18803 |
OK, make considerations, something that will be useful to see and feel free to open the poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 16:01
Post
#63
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
I use 320 mp3. mp3 is compatible with everything and storage is so cheap and vast that I don't bother with any vbr. Plus, I get some comforting sense of having the best possible mp3 that soothes my OCD. I archive everything in FLAC with logs and cue sheets.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 18:09
Post
#64
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 318 Joined: 26-November 04 Member No.: 18345 |
QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 09:01) I use 320 mp3. mp3 is compatible with everything and storage is so cheap and vast that I don't bother with any vbr. I only listen to MP3 on portable players, all with 32GB or less of storage. While that storage is relatively cheap, it is limited, so I use VBR at about 180kbps, which nearly doubles the number of files I can get on the devices compared to 320 kbps. And considering that I'm usually listening to those players while in a noisy gym, the sound quality is way more than adequate. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 19:54
Post
#65
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jul 25 2012, 13:09) QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 09:01) I use 320 mp3. mp3 is compatible with everything and storage is so cheap and vast that I don't bother with any vbr. I only listen to MP3 on portable players, all with 32GB or less of storage. While that storage is relatively cheap, it is limited, so I use VBR at about 180kbps, which nearly doubles the number of files I can get on the devices compared to 320 kbps. And considering that I'm usually listening to those players while in a noisy gym, the sound quality is way more than adequate. That's cool. I don't use any portable music devices. At the gym they have TVs on the treadmills.  I do all my listening either at home on my computer, where I shuffle my music, or in my car, where I just listen to CDs old school style.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 20:00
Post
#66
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 318 Joined: 26-November 04 Member No.: 18345 |
QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 12:54) I don't use any portable music devices. At the gym they have TVs on the treadmills. I do all my listening either at home on my computer, where I shuffle my music, or in my car, where I just listen to CDs old school style. Then why don't you simply listen to the FLAC files that you have? Why a need for MP3s at all? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 20:48
Post
#67
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jul 25 2012, 15:00) QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 12:54) I don't use any portable music devices. At the gym they have TVs on the treadmills. I do all my listening either at home on my computer, where I shuffle my music, or in my car, where I just listen to CDs old school style. Then why don't you simply listen to the FLAC files that you have? Why a need for MP3s at all? FLAC files are very large. Thus, instead of keeping them on my computer I archive them. Plus, I do a lot of manipulation to the mp3 files that I don't want to do to the flac files, things like renaming, retagging, replay gain, etc. The FLAC files are directly from rips and archived exactly as they are. Even with a 2TB drive flac fills it up pretty quickly whereas I can have weeks and weeks of music to shuffle with mp3 and still tons of room to add more. So, if I ever need to burn a disc, I have the flac album. If I ever need to encode to some other lossy format, I have the flac, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 21:02
Post
#68
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 318 Joined: 26-November 04 Member No.: 18345 |
You just got done saying "storage is so cheap". Which it is - you can store about 6000 CDs on a $100 2TB hard disk.
You allow your ripping software to tag those files, don't you? I retag my FLAC files after ripping, add ReplayGain tags, move the files, sometimes rename them. All of that "manipulation" is to the metadata only, and leaves the audio portion of the files completely untouched. I can still burn an exact duplicate of the CD using the CUE sheet that I generate during the ripping process, and use the files as source for generating MP3s. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 21:06
Post
#69
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9264 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 12:48) Plus, I do a lot of manipulation to the mp3 files that I don't want to do to the flac files, things like renaming, retagging, replay gain, etc. You probably should have said they are less than half the size and left it at that. Now we all get to watch you be disabused. <sarcasm> Joy! </sarcasm> This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 25 2012, 21:12 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 22:02
Post
#70
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
Eh, the way I do it makes sense for me and makes me happy. Cheap is a relative term I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 22:05
Post
#71
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
QUOTE (JJZolx @ Jul 25 2012, 16:02) You just got done saying "storage is so cheap". Which it is - you can store about 6000 CDs on a $100 2TB hard disk. You allow your ripping software to tag those files, don't you? I retag my FLAC files after ripping, add ReplayGain tags, move the files, sometimes rename them. All of that "manipulation" is to the metadata only, and leaves the audio portion of the files completely untouched. I can still burn an exact duplicate of the CD using the CUE sheet that I generate during the ripping process, and use the files as source for generating MP3s. If you rename them then you can't, unless you are willing to manually edit the cue sheet. Also, I should have mentioned that I have some stuff where I have the mp3s but not a lossless rip. Long story short, it soothes my autism to do it the way I do it because I want them all to be uniform. We all have our ways I guess. And yes, I use EAC to tag the files, but my desires for my mp3 tags are different. I use as little information as possible in those tags: artist, title, album, track # and year. That's it. For all 70 bajillion of them. I don't consider the tags important in an archived lossless format so I don't mess with them. This post has been edited by MahFlac: Jul 25 2012, 22:16 |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2012, 23:00
Post
#72
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1469 Joined: 30-November 06 Member No.: 38207 |
I have actually experienced file corruption when overwriting during tagging, so to some extent I understand the “don't touch my rip archive!” attitude. (Using generous padding upon first encoding should reduce the writing, though ... for those who wish to comfort their semiparanoia.)
But then I don't understand the purpose of a FLAC archive never to be played, and some MP3 everyday drive (unless for portable use, where space is still an issue) – when just by upsizing you can have another backup of your FLACs. My second set is in my office, on external USB drives. Files are created at home, with file ownership being Porcus@home, so my work computer denies my every attempt at changing or deleting ... I have to live with those junk tags. And unlike an untouched backup, this one is test run 250 days a year. As a guard against “what the heck did I just write to file?”, I did once fiddle around with an OpenSolaris server setup with the awesome ZFS file system for snapshotting. But nowadays Windows users can set up the Volume Shadow Copy as well. -------------------- geocities.com/hydrogenaudio: http://goo.gl/tqYZj
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2012, 01:52
Post
#73
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25-July 12 Member No.: 101743 |
QUOTE (Porcus @ Jul 25 2012, 18:00) But then I don't understand the purpose of a FLAC archive never to be played, and some MP3 everyday drive (unless for portable use, where space is still an issue) – when just by upsizing you can have another backup of your FLACs. It's because I'm extremely anal about the collection I listen to. I want them all to be uniform and not every one (but most) come from EAC Rips. Every single album in the collection I listen to is 320 and tagged the same way, etc. Plus, I have other things on the drives I use such as movies, etc. It's just what makes me happy, it doesn't have to make sense to everyone. It's fun to hear what other people do though. I'm sure that when we have 50 tb hard drives or whatever it won't be an issue. At that point FLAC won't even be necessary, except for tagging I guess, but in my mind no tags are better than bad ones. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2012, 12:20
Post
#74
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 13-July 12 From: California Member No.: 101393 |
Not really sure how to answer.
I mostly use ogg -q5 but I also use ogg -q1 for my portable. For mp3 I just use -preset standard which I think is V2 ??? But I rarely do mp3 these days. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2012, 12:25
Post
#75
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 13-July 12 From: California Member No.: 101393 |
QUOTE (MahFlac @ Jul 25 2012, 14:05) And yes, I use EAC to tag the files, but my desires for my mp3 tags are different. I use as little information as possible in those tags: artist, title, album, track # and year. That's it. For all 70 bajillion of them. I don't consider the tags important in an archived lossless format so I don't mess with them. I do the same thing - lots of tags for flac (and my ogg vorbis has same as flac) but when I transcode to mp3 I just the basic 6 - artist album title track year genre - plus a comment (comment has version of lame used to encode) I'm not a big fan of ID3 - maybe I'd be more tag happy in mp3 if I used ape or something, I don't know. This post has been edited by AliceWonder: Aug 4 2012, 12:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 14:51 |
