30-minute recording 64 kbps 15MB 96 kbps 23MB 128 kbps 30MB. For example, if you choose a video bitrate of kbps and an audio bitrate of.128 kbps 10MB. A good part of that is ripped CDs that I can rerip, and I'm also not opposed to investing some money buying songs at 256 kbps AAC through iTunes.The minimum upload speed for smooth streaming with good quality is 3Mbps kbps.
The quality I'm going for is 256 kbps AAC. Picking the right bit rate is a balance between quality and what you can. Larger file sizes negatively impact your file hosting costs, while lower bit rates can impact the quality of your recordings.
Is 128 Kbps Good Quality Full And I
Also, I like syncing my entire music library to my iPhone and using up twice as much space would be annoying.With that in mind: which songs are worth upgrading from 128 - 192 kbps AAC or MP3 to 256 kbps AAC?There's a bunch of songs in my library that I don't listen to much, but I keep around because they complete an album or something like that. A video data rate of 250 kbps should produce excellent quality at 320×240.Still, I don't want to upgrade my library wholesale, because my 256 GB SSD is currently about full and I'm waiting for Apple to release new MacBook Pros to upgrade. Also, my new headphones can do both wired and bluetooth, and Apple transmits audio over bluetooth as ~ 256 kbps AAC, so what I'm hoping for is that AAC files will be transferred directly over bluetooth without further transcoding or processing, so 256 kbps AAC would give me the best possible quality over bluetooth, wires be damned.640 kbps mp3, 640 x 360 352 kbps Below VHS AAC: 128 kbps 480 kbps Nintendo Wii.
But a few years earlier, there's also stuff that although nice musically, isn't recorded in very high fidelity, stuff like the Supremes, for instance.Or maybe I have it backwards: poorer recordings need more bits to sound as good as they can?In the 1980s, as they started figuring out mastering for CD, things got really good, like for instance Graceland by Paul Simon.An example of the overly compressed stuff would be Gettin' High On Your Own Supply by Apollo 440 (late 1990s). The late 1960s also have high points, such as The Beatle's Abbey Road. Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, for instance. Which brings me to my question: at what point did recording technology become good enough that encoding at a higher bitrate than 128 - 192 kbps makes a difference that doesn't drown in the noise and analog artifacts? Also, it seems that mastering practices have deteriorated, resulting in a good amount of more recent music that is so overly processed that there's not really any detail left to fill up those extra bits beyond 128 kbps.I've already revisited some of my music from the 1970s, and often, it sounds surprisingly good.
At a certain point the encoder will have all the bits it wants and any additional ones you give it are simply wasted (zero padded frames).Personally, I'd say 192k is a great choice. Its a codec aimed at 64-96kbps. 256k is way overkill for AAC-lc. Plus analog artifacts don't really cover up digital ones, unless they are pretty extreme.You are thinking about this problem wrong. Which brings me to my question: at what point did recording technology become good enough that encoding at a higher bitrate than 128 - 192 kbps makes a difference that doesn't drown in the noise and analog artifacts?They still haven't, unless you're listening to 5.1 audio.
I just happened to have The Three Degrees Greatest Hits in my USB SuperDrive, so I ripped the five songs that I like from that one at 128, 192 and 256 kbps with and without VBR. AAC performance at 128k is extremely good, even for very challenging to encode samples.That statement calls for some experimentation. But if you need to save space on your portable player, do not assume 256 or 192 will be better than 128k.
So it looks like there was no zero padding going on.To get to the bottom of this, I created a 30-second (mono) audio file with just silence in Audacity, exported it as AIFF and had iTunes convert it to AAC with the iTunes Plus preset (128 kbps + VBR for mono) and the file came out as 96 kbps. Compression was in the range 0.3% and 1.0%. Zo I gzipped all the files. With VBR, the files are always bigger:So the bitrate in iTunes for AAC is not correct.Now if there are zero-padded frames, that padding should compress nicely. I didn't include any album art in the files.Without VBR, the file sizes match the bitrate to about 1 kbps.
(This was probably with the Sennheiser HD 535.)I was thinking with the new Master & Dynamic MW60, the difference would be bigger. I did the same listening test in the past and back then I was able to pick out the lossless version somewhat consistently on selected songs. All of these compress by 20 - 30 k with gzip, which is probably the file format overhead and not the actual audio.I did some listening and it seems that you're right: I don't really hear the difference between 128 kbps AAC and Apple lossless. So I guess there is padding going on, but with an uncompressable pattern? That doesn't make sense.Just for good measure: the Apple Lossless version is reported by iTunes as 79 kbps, and with the 128 kbps + VBR MP3 setting it's 63 VBR, without VBR 64 kbps.
Is 128 Kbps Good Quality 320 Kbps MP3S To
But when ripping CDs, I have yet to see anything come in under 128 kbps, even when there isn't much going on or it's in mono. I guess it helped that those songs were recorded in mono. That way, the encoder can take extra headroom as you suggest, but only when it feels it needs to.Interestingly, I converted some Buddy Holly 320 kbps MP3s to 128 kbps VBR AAC and some of the files actually came in under 128 kbps. That's something that varies widely between songs and different recordings/mixes of the same song (why are there so many of those!?) anyway, so optimizing for that doesn't seem like a useful approach to me.So I've settled on 128 kbps with VBR. And if there's a difference, it's that the soundstage seems a tiny bit wider.
(Well, 1980s and 1990s, I don't have anything actually recent on CD I think.
0 kommentar(er)
