Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wat Bitrate R U Ripping @?
- Thread starter bcharm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm doing 192 aac.
I did a listening test (five albums in completely different genres) and I heard *some* sound artifacts in a few songs with bitrates less than 192. Its a bit wasteful as I'm not getting as many songs on my iPod, but I think the sound quality is worth it.
Taft
I did a listening test (five albums in completely different genres) and I heard *some* sound artifacts in a few songs with bitrates less than 192. Its a bit wasteful as I'm not getting as many songs on my iPod, but I think the sound quality is worth it.
Taft
I'm not doing ACC yet either but my MP3s are rippd at 192 VBR (most hit between 200 and 230). I'll probably rip ACC at the same bit rate when I start going that route.
Lethal
Lethal
128 AAC is fine. I'm not an audiophile with Bose speakers or anything, so my tunes sound just fine. If 128 AAC is clear enough for the Apple store, it's clear enough for me. My tunes sound great with my iPod playing through my Harmon Kardon system in my car.
And the saved space is nice...
And the saved space is nice...
My entire collection was origianlly burned at 192 MP3's, and I've now replaced my faves with 192 AAC. Doubt I'll do them all, at least not for a while.
As a windoze xp user, I don't rip aac yet.. hope to have it in the future... 
But i rip my mp3s at variable bitrate 128-160.. its a pretty cool solution.. you can also use 112-160 but i'm not so sure about the difference in quality of the sound..
But i rip my mp3s at variable bitrate 128-160.. its a pretty cool solution.. you can also use 112-160 but i'm not so sure about the difference in quality of the sound..
I'm using AAC @ 128...I don't have enough harddrive space to rip much larger...and I think the sound is just fine...but that's just me.
Most "audiophiles" (an overly used and practically meaning term, IMO) would say that Bose is actually pretty bad from the standpoint that the speakers don't accurately reproduce music as it is recorded.
Bose operates from a "fill the room" perspective, meaning they alter the shape of the sound to make it sound more attractive to the casual listener. From that standpoint, they do a very good job. But the fact remains: Bose alters the sound of the music. Usually by pumping up the bass.
What a true audiophile is looking for is accurate reproduction of the recorded music. They are looking for a situation in which the music comingout of their speakers sounds exactly like the monitors used to master the recording. They are looking for perfection. This is something that Bose does not deliver.
Bose makes products for a music listener who wants their music to sound good, but isn't interested in the specifics. Listeners who want a more refined experience that remains true to the sound of the original recording will use other equipment.
Taft
Good greif. I didn't mean to spark a technical debate on Bose quality. I was merely saying 128 AAC sounds just fine to my ears, and used the first quality name that came to mind.
I have one of those Bose wave radios and it ain't what it's cracked up to be. It's more like a glorified alarm clock (that is all I really use it for).
Anyway...
I have one of those Bose wave radios and it ain't what it's cracked up to be. It's more like a glorified alarm clock (that is all I really use it for).
Anyway...
I'm converting everything to 160 AAC. I probably really don't need much more than that for a bunch of punk music from 1981. The sound quality is less than perfect to start with.
192 VBR for most pop/rock stuff with no dynamic range anyway.
256 VBR for anything that demands absolute fidelity.
256 for anything over 10 mins or so because iTunes is absolutely worthless for dealing with VBR files much over that length (unresponsiveness skipping through the track, total sound cut off at places till it finds it's place again, this is PATHETIC!!! and some people with iPODs have a similar issues with long, DJ or live sets).
Just talking about mp3s, Not AACs yet.
I can't use them till I get at least an AGP graphics G4 because iTunes 4 is OS X only and my 'supported' mac isn't 'supported' by any of the OS X versions of the software I currently run fine on my G3 under OS 9.
256 VBR for anything that demands absolute fidelity.
256 for anything over 10 mins or so because iTunes is absolutely worthless for dealing with VBR files much over that length (unresponsiveness skipping through the track, total sound cut off at places till it finds it's place again, this is PATHETIC!!! and some people with iPODs have a similar issues with long, DJ or live sets).
Just talking about mp3s, Not AACs yet.
I can't use them till I get at least an AGP graphics G4 because iTunes 4 is OS X only and my 'supported' mac isn't 'supported' by any of the OS X versions of the software I currently run fine on my G3 under OS 9.
I did do 192 kb/sec MP3 but now 192 AAC. My ears can't tell the difference between them but i know AAC is better and i have the hard drive space so i figured 192 would be a nice number.
bose and bass
bose does pump up the bass and its noticible. i have bose mediamate speakers and also altec lansing 621 speakers (with a seperate sub, as opposed to the bose) and the altec lansing speakers are ten times better and a better value at only 20% more than the bose speakers. If i had the money or the room in my dorm, i would have splurged for the 641s. My friend has them and they are the best computer speakers i've ever heard.
bose does pump up the bass and its noticible. i have bose mediamate speakers and also altec lansing 621 speakers (with a seperate sub, as opposed to the bose) and the altec lansing speakers are ten times better and a better value at only 20% more than the bose speakers. If i had the money or the room in my dorm, i would have splurged for the 641s. My friend has them and they are the best computer speakers i've ever heard.
I haven't and will not do AAC in the near future as it it not supported by my DVD changer or my MP3 car stereo.
I rip all my CDs into MP3s at 320Kb/s VBR. I am very particular about the sound and CDs are cheap so I can burn a dozen MP3 CDs if I want. I don't really care that it takes up more space. Also CDs sound like crap to start with who would want to degrade the quality any?
I rip all my CDs into MP3s at 320Kb/s VBR. I am very particular about the sound and CDs are cheap so I can burn a dozen MP3 CDs if I want. I don't really care that it takes up more space. Also CDs sound like crap to start with who would want to degrade the quality any?
128 AAC is fine for me (it isn't like the iPod has tremendous fidelity). If I want full sound I throw the CD into my Bose system. As far as some of the criticism about Bose, I agree, it is like a Mac. Plug it in and hit play. Simple and relatively inexpensive. I also wonder if there is a difference between the sound of "whole" Lifestyle systems and their A La Carte speakers.
I started ripping in 128 kbps, but I decided to start over at 160 kbps. The reason is that it sounds a bit better and that I found out that most of my CD's have scratches so that I like a better copy for archiving them. If I spend more room now (don't have much of it on my powerbook though), I will be happier with it in the long run I hope.
bit rate
Well, I admit I listen to music only from the ear-buds of the ipod, but AAC coded at 96 sound fine...
Probably, the song would play awfully from stereo speakers, but so far...
Andrea
Well, I admit I listen to music only from the ear-buds of the ipod, but AAC coded at 96 sound fine...
Probably, the song would play awfully from stereo speakers, but so far...
Andrea