n00b question - CD's and MP3 bitrate

[Fistism]

What bitrate should I rip my CD's at so as not to lose any quality when going to MP3? If variable, can someone suggest an excellent VBR ripper / encoder that takes the guesswork out of my hands (and doesn't encode with that high pitched, sounds-like-some-kind-of-cymbal sound that so many MP3's have but that I seem to be one of very few people who can hear)?

I'm asking this because I've been curious about the equivalent bitrate on CD's. I like the fact that MP3's save so much space over WAV (CD), but...

I have a coworker who religiously rips at 320kbps. Is he, as I think he is, wasting room, essentially -- analogously speaking -- blowing a 300x300 resolution bitmap up to a 450x450? Is he wasting space?

I don't want to lose any quality, but I don't want to lose space either. Yes, I can hear, even with my crappy at-work sound system, a clear difference between 96 and 128... Is there any reason to go above 128?

Thanks in advance for your input. Video encoding is so much easier...

-tl
-www.snapstream.com

[GarbagePoe]

Well, you're going to loose quality no matter what. I personally only rip at 192 or above.

[WomanOfHeart]

Personally, I keep my bitrates at between 128 and 192. I think anything else is a waste of space. That's just my opinion.

[Gonzotek]

LAME --alt-preset standard. It's about as tuned as a mp3 encoder can get, highly tested to sound as transparent as possible while maintaining reasonable bitrates, and integrates into many front ends, allowing you to choose the gui of your preference.

For the record, the optimal setting in any encoder is the one that "sounds right to you"....on some samples you might prefer alt-preset extreme or insane. More than likely, --aps will be enough.

You can get the latest Lame build from rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org. I use CDex for ripping, many people prefer EAC because it's major feature is ultra-secure ripping, but I haven't ever had CDex fail my listening tests, so I'm happy.

Links:
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
Recommended Lame Compiles(you should get the LAME 3.90.3 package, and drop the .dll over the one included with CDex)
Recommended Lame Settings

[edit]BTW, 320 is overkill. And becareful posting at Hydrogenaudio. They have specific terms of service rules regarding the posting. If you make a claim in your post about audio qualities, you'll be asked to back it up by the ABX testing methodology of listening to samples blind and statistically determining between them. It's a great information resource, but it's very important to observe the rules at Hydrogenaudio when posting.
[/edit]
-=Gonzotek=-

[tiger84]

The average person cannot tell an apreciable difference between a CD and an MP3 ripped at 192 kbs. Now some audiophile may come in and tell me I'm being an idiot, but remember audiophiles look for imperfections in sound...thats like trying to look for all the stuff going wrong in your life. You certainly don't need to rip everything at 320 kbs. Very sparse classical music, yes; heavy metal rock, a definite no.

[mikm]

Originally posted by Falcon4
Though it may be of no apparent use, one of the methods recommended by those audio nuts on-- well, the H word site, was to listen to the samples side by side and see if you can see which one's compressed and which one's the original.

I did that on one of the songs I did a CD-to-MP3 copy with. I encoded it as an uncapped 128kbps stereo MP3 (theoretically the same quality as 320kbps), and put it into the multitrack session with the original WAV. I swtiched, using solo mode during playback, between the MP3 and the WAV, back and forth constantly, and though there was a slight change in sound - barely noticable unless you're listening to the noise itself, not the music - and still had to look up and see which file it was coming from.

If 128kbps can match 192kbps quality, I still think it's a space saver. I still think we should at LEAST make an application-dependant (e.g. what're you using it in, not what program) MP3 encoder.

Yes? No?

You remind me of falcon . Not disagreeing or agreeing with you, though. I think there is somewhat of a difference, although, like you said, it is easier to tell with less "violent" music.

[BullGawD]

He does have sort of a dumdum falcon4 air about him, now that you mention it.

[tiger84]

Originally posted by BullGawD
He does have sort of a dumdum falcon4 air about him, now that you mention it.

Did I do something to be insulted by you? To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that is most definetly a NO.

[Viper007Bond]

My suggestion is to not go below 192. You can hear the shittiness of the compression at 128 in complicated songs.

And it's not worth dealing with VBR - it causes more problems that it's worth.

[Twilightseer]

I personally use Lame's "alt-fast standard" preset, it's quick and perfect

[whitie6969]

It all depends on the quality of your reburn and the quality of the stereo system you play your cd's in

[Fistism]

Originally posted by Gonzotek
LAME --alt-preset standard.

I'll have to check the encodes I have, but I think LAME was what I was using (with Audiograbber) for a time, and that it encoded with those high-pitched tweaking "cymbal-esque" noises I alluded to previously.

Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

Thanks for your input!

[Fistism]

Originally posted by whitie6969
It all depends on the quality of your reburn and the quality of the stereo system you play your cd's in

Assuming top-quality everything, and that I'm far from nerve deafness, then?

I've got some great replies so far and it sounds like I may vacillate between 128 and 192... Probably 192 "just to be sure."

BTW the coworker I speak of listens mostly to (c)rap...

At 320. Wow.

Thank you all for your input!!

[Cylob]

I can't tell the difference between 128 & 192. And before you ask, no I wasn't raised by wolves.

[dylman]

LAME is the best mp3 encoder, period. So pick a few tracks you are very familiar with and experiment with various settings, (really, the --alt-presets are all you need to bother with). Go with whatever makes you happiest. Make sure you use a decent ripper such as CDEx or EAC.

If you can't get results you're happy with using mp3 then try a different codec, such as Ogg Vorbis, MPC, etc. Different codecs will produce different sound artifacts and you may find one of them more to your taste.

Hydrogen Audio really is the best place for this kind of discussion. Good luck!

[jakeledel]

i can definitely tell a difference between 128 and 192. i use lame and rip it vbr 192-320. sounds very good.


edit: spelling

[tiger84]

Originally posted by Fistism
BTW the coworker I speak of listens mostly to (c)rap...

At 320. Wow.

Thank you all for your input!!

WOW! That is a waste...I mean rap to begin with is just a waste...and then to waste all that disk space is just wrong.