I converted all my MP3s to 56kbps - Am I mad?

TaoFan

TaoFan

Newbie
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Some people may think so, but I'm trying to save space and frankly I don't hear much difference. Before ditching my CDs to make room, I did encode them all to VBR 32-320kbps (Extreme preset in LAME), but I noticed they took up a lot more room for little benefit.

So I mass-converted them all using WinAmp's DiskWriter option, which has 56kbps as maximum.

I imagine many of you don't like MP3s on principle, but I came across this guy once who wasn't satisfied with MP3s or CDs and wanted 32-bit sound for...

...wait for it...

...Sinclair ZX Spectrum music!!!

Not classical music by Mozart, but bleepy tinny bleepy tunes from some old computer in the 1980s! 32-bit SOUND for THAT!!

I told him to stuff it and stop being such a toff when it came to music.
 
I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 320kps.. 56 is ear torture :|
 
Jesus. That's too noticeable. I never go below 128kbps.
 
anything that is below Wav PCM 16 bit or lossless flac 16 bit has noticeable artifacts imho, not much of a difference between 56k and 128k mp3, it's a crap medium. It depends alot on what system you're listening on :)

I imagine many of you don't like MP3s on principle, but I came across this guy once who wasn't satisfied with MP3s or CDs and wanted 32-bit sound for...

...wait for it...

...Sinclair ZX Spectrum music!!!

Not classical music by Mozart, but bleepy tinny bleepy tunes from some old computer in the 1980s! 32-bit SOUND for THAT!!

I told him to stuff it and stop being such a toff when it came to music.
Click to expand...

that's ****ing awesome. you have to have a high bit rate to appreciate the warmth of those sounds. :p
 
you're serious you can't hear the difference? man and i thought 128kbps was bad on big speakers.

quite frankly I'm appalled, enjoy your fuzz.
 
I can't hear much difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s, but I try and get them all at the latter, just so that if I get a soundcard which does let me hear the difference (as opposed to my shitty onboard), then I won't hae to redo all my collection.
 
In fairness, I have good speakers/amplifier, so I really hear the difference - they're often at high volumes.. can tell the difference between CDs and 320kbps mp3s as well..
 
Screw mp3, ogg or wmv those biatches. But still, 192 at least :p
 
hungryduck said:
agreed....56k is horrible.
I have studio monitors.....its rather obvious when audio is less than 128k on those....
Click to expand...

i do too.. 16 bit loses some of the depth and harmonics of 32 bit, mp3 is completely flat.
 
But what is the physical manifestation of very low bitrates in MP3 files? I went down as low as 40kbps once and I noticed the difference then, there was less fidelity and t and s speech noises sounded muffled. So I didn't touch that.

You have to remember, I'm used to low-quality sound. I'm fond of computer music from the 80s and 90s (Atari 8-bit, Amiga) and I made loads of audio cassettes of my favourite tunes, but then I ended up with either white noise on some recorders or distorted sound levels on others. So I ended up with tapes with a lot of hiss, or tapes where even the quiet parts of tunes sounded as loud as the loud parts. So I really am not fussed.

I DO have some commercial music as well, but I've treated them the same way (56kbps).

Tell you what, I've ordered a commercial music CD from Amazon, and will rip the tunes from that to both Extreme LAME Preset and 56kbps, and compare all three.

Then, if I agree with all that you've said (or even notice it), I will keep the Extreme versions and keep the 56kbps as backups.
 
i am pretty tolerant though, most of my music that isn't ripped from CD's is mp3.
i regularly listen to 92kbs and 56kbs radiostations (www.sleepbot.com <3)

i like quality where it's absolutely necessary or to spoil myself with good sound abit, and of course my own music is only on mp3 online.

most commercial music is so compressed it's not really noticeable if it's in 128k because all the high frequencies are chugged away anyway.
 
Oh, that's true, I never mentioned what system I listen to these MP3s ON.

Well, it's an MP3 player with 1Gb capacity. I do have a second MP3 player with just 384Mb, but I'd like to fit as many on as I can, see? Even if the players are the stick memory types with simple displays with limited navigation for tracks.
 
Uck, I wouldn't be able to stand that. 128 kb/s is as low as I can handle.
 
If you can't hear the difference in 128 vs 56, then you need new speakers or something
 
96kbps sounds appallingly flat :(

I heart "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" by Daft Punk in 384 kbps. Millions times better than 128kbps.
 
It really depends how good your speakers are and if you are listening on a PC then your sound card would matter as well. If you just have basic PC speakers you are probably not going to tell the difference and anything will sound sorta poor. I have pretty good PC speakers (not as good as quality speakers and a receiver etc) and I can tell the difference between CD and MP3 a little bit. There are some sounds that are missing and you can tell it's compressed. But I still put all my stuff in MP3s for when listening on the PC. Exact Audio Copy + LAME @ 192 or 224kbps (vbr) joint stereo. I used to record everything at 320kbps but that was a waste of space back when I only had a 80gb hard drive. There is a noticable difference when a 128 or 160kbps song comes on. I can tell just by listening to the song.

And I never listen to my MP3s through my home theater system, only CDs. /shudder
You can tell the difference between that and CD almost like night and day there.
 
HD space for me isn't the issue, it's whether I can back the files up on a DVD-R (4.7Gb).

At the moment, with the 56kbps MP3s, there are 636 of them taking up 1.33Gb of space, whilst the HQ ones fill up almost the entire DVD. Maybe it's because I'm running out of room that I'm downgrading?
 
As for speakers, I have none. The only interface I have with my PC's sound is through a pair of damaged headphones that long ago gave up any attempt to handle deep bass from my LCD TV set. So I consigned them TO the PC.
 
I don't have many low bitrate mp3s but the ones I have are very streaming quality and I can definitely tell they aren't the best. But I'm not an audiophile and don't really care so much. Having all my music 56kbps would probably be different though :x
 
I'd put a 56-96kbps mp3 on the web for something, (so long as it had no vocals), but to constantly listen to music at that bitrate and not notice the difference between that and a more conventional 128 or 160, i'd be getting new speakers and possibly new ears. I barely notice the difference above 128 to be honest, but then my speakers are ancient Cambridge Soundworks thingies anyway.
 
I thought Cambridge Soundworks were the best speakers around.

No, as I said, I'll wait for that CD, then compare the files I create.
 
Generally I hate the SQ on MP3's even @ 128kbps, 224 is my preferred.
 
Bleh, mp3's xD

Yuck, that said i do have an mp3 player so i can take my musics around with me when i'm not near a quality source of sound.
 
.flac ftw, also .ogg...and .mod/.sid/.xm but thats another story :)

I have spent a small furtune on my stereo setup and you hear it pretty well if youre running a normal 128 mp3 or a 320 mp3/flac on high volumes. The bass is goes lower (I have dubble 12") and the whole spectrum of sound is much wider.

But like some said before, you need a good setup to really hear the difference.
 
I must have crap headphones, then. When I tried to listen to them connected to my LCD TV during a film with a bass-heavy soundtrack, they crackled so much it was unbearable. But they're fine with the computer at the moment.
 
192 is fine for me. 320 is overkill on my setup.
 
And there I am thinking I was being awesome ripping at 192.

I actually have a fantastic sound system that I never use.

A creative Audigy 2 Sound card ( I think thats what its called, it has like 7 holes in it to put things in) and a 5.1 creative speaker system with a big **** off subwoofer.
 
When I play music on my laptop internal speakers I really wouldn't had guessed that some of my mp3s are 56kbps and others are 128kbps. If its for backup I probably would go for it.
 
Whats the point in backing up at such low quality? You can't up the quality later..
 
I've taken all your advice and converted all my high-quality MP3s (32-320kbps VBR) to 160kbps CBR. Yes, I know you'll moan at CBR, but I don't like the fact the bitrate fluctuates all the time and that some MP3 players don't like VBR.

And anyway, I found out that some encoders do the VBR job poorly and recommend 112kbps for the minimum setting. Well, since the maximum would be 160kbps I figured I may as well use CBR and make it ALL 160kbps.

Ironically, some of the computer music tracks have actually INCREASED in size. But then I guess a 320kbps CBR would be much larger than a 320kbps VBR - right?

Still think I'm mad now? :angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NeptuneUK
I want to record music again on my laptop.
Replies
2
Views
526
Vegeta897
Vegeta897
Back
Top