What does your bit rate say about you?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bottle

Caffeine Addict
Galvanizer
What kind of a digital music user are you? Were you part of the original Napster revolution? Maybe you're in your 50s and prefer huge audio files in order to preserve the clarity and feeling of Mark Knopfler's fret-fondling.

Whatever bit rate you choose, you might not be able to help what your choice says about you. Let's dive in at the shallow end.

128kbps
You probably don't know the bit rate at which your music is encoded -- this is the default iTunes rate and it seems good to you. You're probably happy with the headphones that came with your MP3 player. But you may have started downloading free music back when Napster was in its original illegal P2P form, and you may currently be a Limewire user, having never heard of or felt the need to understand BitTorrent. You don't see the advantage in hard-disk-based MP3 players and wouldn't know what to listen out for if offered an album encoded in lossless format. You're perfectly happy with having a 2GB MP3 player or an iPod Shuffle. You're unlikely to own a large library of CDs.

160/192kbps
You're likely to have jumped on the bandwagon of the original illegal version of Napster, but have since realised that higher bit rates are noticeable, perhaps by utilising free MP3 encoding tools. You own an average number of CDs and may have spent up to £25 on a pair of headphones, realising that superior hardware can enhance your music-listening experience as much as a higher bit rate. You're possibly a musician or you may have done a music course. As a drummer, for example, you may notice the brightness of cymbals is greater at 192kbps, but you can't see the point in using a bit rate that pushes the average file size over 6MB per track.

256kbps
If you listen to 256kbps (which variable bit rate often averages at), you're a reserved or closet audiophile and you would rather spend more money on a hard-disk-based MP3 player than have either low-quality music or carry only a portion of your music with you. You're likely to own a large collection of CDs but you're the most likely to use BitTorrent to acquire the majority of your albums. You don't have many miscellaneous tracks hanging around in your music library and you owned an iPod mini or 1-4GB MP3 player in the past. You're excited to hear brighter guitars, deeper bass and more defined audible complexities. You don't listen to much classical music.

However, you wouldn't purchase a CD of an album you've already downloaded from BitTorrent just to hear music at a higher quality unless you pro-actively decide to support the band you love. You won't re-rip the CD you buy, deciding instead to leave it untouched in your CD rack. You also ensure your music's ID3 tags are complete, though you don't much care about details such as year of release.

320kbps
You thrive on high-quality music and you actively listen out for the tell-tale signs of high bit rates. You are likely to have downloaded some music from BitTorrent but you mainly buy CDs and rip them yourself. You don't use Limewire for downloading music. You may well have your PC plugged into a hi-fi, or you own an iPod and use a good quality dock to connect it to your sound system. You know what lossless music is, but you possibly can't justify re-ripping your music library due to the storage constraints of lossless audio. You're quite likely to be a Mac user and have considered using Linux on a secondary computer. Your headphones cost at least £50 and you own or are considering owning an HDTV. Your laptop cost at least £1,000. You don't buy music from iTunes because you are aware of how low quality the music is. You are likely to use eMusic and you like mostly rock music. You subscribe to at least two technology podcasts and you were born after 1978.

Lossless (FLAC or Apple Lossless)
You are most likely to be born before 1978. You are the most likely group to be a Mac user and your headphones cost in excess of £60, possibly made by Shure, Sennheiser or Ultimate Ears. You own a fifth-gen video iPod and an HDTV. Your laptop cost at least £1,000 and you consider yourself a cinema fan. You are the least likely to download music illegally, instead preferring to own a huge CD library. You're highly likely to be a musician and own at least one book about either quantum mechanics, philosophy or psychology. Your mobile phone bill is considerably higher than average and you may work in the technology industry.

You're depressed when you see people on the train using their MP3 player's bundled headphones and you probably listen to technology podcasts. You may well know the bit rate your podcasts are encoded at. You used Napster back in the day, but you never stopped buying CDs. You use Limewire or BitTorrent to occasionally sample an album, but you always buy the CD if you like what you hear.

Conclusion or Confusion?
Maybe you've just found yourself falling into the chasm of predictability, a victim of bit rate cliche. Or perhaps you've been left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, reading that your freakish or implacable choices of music compression (or lack of) are too erratic to earn yourself placement in such a pigeon-hole.
Crave Talk: What does your bit rate say about you? - Crave at CNET.co.uk
 
Nice.

Scary, though. I fit all the criteria of that last set, including the 'born before' bit.

BTW it's only wav for me, from original CDs - I consider FLAC and Apple lossless inferior. I always look for 'audiophile' CDs.

Scary how I can also tell the difference between 256 kbps and the wave files, 8 out of 10 times. It's an expensive hobby for me.

Maybe I just am an audio snob. :(
 
Frankly 128kbps is usually good enough.

To enjoy more, you need the right equipment, room AND music. Not all songs really benefit all that much. Some do very obviously, others are all just the same.
 
I just dont belong to any category, as in the description doesnt fit me at all. Though I prefer to own 320Kbps audio as they do sound different even on ordinary audio equipment. I love my ROCK!!
 
@KingKrool, I think I do. Frankly, 128 doesn't cut it all, 192 is listenable maybe in cars but my collection is downsized to 256 for car and casual (MX5021) listening.

For my listening sessions, it's only wav files as the system clearly points out compressed artifacts and I can't listen to more than 2 songs in MP3 on the main system - not even 192 kbps. 256 could pass for some time, but soon I'll crave the extra resolution and detail of the wav files.

Just FYI, I don't own a digital audio player yet (iFraud or similar) and I don't listen on headphones. Also I prefer 192 kbps OGG files to FLAC, as the decoders somehow are better. I can also tell the difference between FLAC and wav (of course on my main system - on the MX5021 connected to my m-audio there is only so much detail in the first place)
 
^^You actually did FLAC vs Wav blind A/B/X? I for sure can't make out any diff whether on my speakers or on my headphones. 320kbps MP3 vs Lossless... hell yea... huge huge diff :P.
 
Damn, i think i belong to all categories :P..actually when it comes down to availability, i'd even go for a 96kpbs if the said recording is rare and not easily available...i'm okay with 192 but my personal favorite is 256 vbr...

but i do not necessarily go around looking for flac n wavs... because they are sucha pain to download... i prefer wav only when i rip my own cds..

Btw, i sometimes intentionally like to make my music sound bad..with scratches to sound like an old gramophone :ohyeah: especially the retro 50s and 60s stuff...it just adds more realism to the sounds n makes it sound like real vinyl records..there is a winamp plugin as well which does the same..its got presets like pre 50s, 50s, 60s era sounds... turn it on, select the rite preset n turn off the lights..it'll transport u into a different era...:ohyeah:
 
Now this is interesting.. .:) I fit in to numerous categories... but was born pre-70's. The only mention of vinyl is by Private Ryan but not to expound upon the sound other than to specify
makes it sound like real vinyl records

This of course is not the same as vinyl :P, which I grew up with. I can date myself by saying when I was a teenager, cd's did not exist yet.

I truly believe there is a quality of sound that real vinyl has, that cannot be duplicated in any other way.

As to a clue of my era....my first Vinyl record, was The Sex Pistols - Never Mind The Bollocks - in pink vinyl :D

I wish I still had it, it would be worth a fortune now :)
 
^^Damn, you're lucky Artful... the only vinyl records I saw as a kid were my grandpa's and he didn't let us touch them lol. Mostly country and a lot of ABBA, that's probably why I'm still hooked on ABBA 25 years later :D
 
256/320

however, a lot of my college days music is in 128 kbps (and there is a very noticeable difference between 128 and 256)but that wouldn't stop me from listening to those tracks

I can't make out the difference b/w 320 and CDs/lossless and not that my equipment doesn't support it, yet I consider myself lucky to be brass eared and not a golden ears audiophile :)

My dad has a bunch of Vinyls , still carefully preserved (and those vinyls used to cost a whopping 50/75 Rs back when he bought them (mid-late 70s) ,

However , I personally prefer high bit rate MP3s over the Vinyls
 
^^RiO: Sometimes wavs ripped to HD can sound better because of no jitter of a CD mechanism. Your soundcard/DAC should be comparable to the CDP, though.
 
ArtfulDidger said:
I truly believe there is a quality of sound that real vinyl has, that cannot be duplicated in any other way.

totally agree with you..though i was not born in tht era, i still consider myself to be retro guy..:P There is a distinct charm of the vinyls..i remember my uncle, then must have been in his 20s, used to have a large collection of vinyl records of Abba, beatles, the byrds, bob dylan etc. which he wont even let us touch..hell, now i know how precious they were to him..:hap5: I dont know if he still has them but they wud sure be worth in gold now..:ohyeah:

Well, as for the vinyl emulator i was talkin about, its just a fun thingy to get the idea of the sounds of tht era..;)

But, since i do not have vinyl records, tht plugin's the best thing tht can get me back to tht era..and its pretty well done for a plugin..its got numerous presets for adding scratches, dust, mechanical noise, electrical noise and wear to the sound..you need to blend all of these to get the right effect...its fun actually..n sets up your mood for a relaxing night after dinner ..:ohyeah:

Use it with frank sinatra, moody blues, cliff richards, bob dylan etc....u'll not feel like going back to the default sound..:hap5:
 
Heh, pretty contrived conclusions but the one thing they all neglect to mention is *GENRE*.

if you are into electronic music, 192kbs or vbr is pretty damn close. Electronic music compresses the best, anything higher is just waste of space.
lame aps with 3.90 or v2 with 3.97 will give you the best quality for the space.

The only time i would justify using higher bitrates is with orchestral music, ie clasical, strings, lots of harmonics, i can see lossy encoders having little problems here, but you would have to have damn good ears to pick it out with an equally hefty system to enable you to hear the difference in the first place.

At which point you wonder whether you are actually listeining to the music or trying to listen to the imperfections, its gets old pretty quick.

Rock at 256vbr again, i bet pretty damn close. Stringed instruments, harmonics again but not as complex as classical, they are usually screaming themselves hoarse anyway.

FLAC/APE btw are lossless and therefore indistinguishable from the wav you get from a CD, mathematically, so i snicker when ppl can tell the diff. oh sure it sounds warmer lol.

Ppl listening to their portable player in a noisy environment don't need more than 128kbs, its not like they are hearing the higher frequencies all that much anyway. So long as your rips come from a lossless source you are fine.

Stay away from audiophiles, no better than religous fanatics, into feeling rather than thinking, and your wallet will thank you :P

Final disclaimer, maybe u can hear the diff in <5% of properly encoded lossy music, still does not make it uselsss. Most examples shown are *specfically* chosen trouble areas that have been constantly worked on and improved.

If you still think you can you can spot the difference, submit to a double blind test, look at the results, you might be surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.