Best bit rate for mp3 download ?

Hi people,

Got a question about saving mp3 properly - wondered if anyone could offer any advice?

We want to save our files as mp3 so they can be downloaded easily however we are not sure about the bit rate and quality of the final mp3.

We are currently using a bit rate of 160 kbps and audio sample rate of 44Khz - saved as standard mp3.

Does this sound about right or should we adjust a few things before saving in future???

Should we increase bit rate and therefore the overall quality and also save as mp3PRO? This obviously takes up more space and slows the download down.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

MM

I always save my mp3's at 192Kbit. I find anything less than that tends to mess up the highs a bit. Its also fine for people to stream if they are on 512 Bband or more..

The amount of just pure argument over this subject is crazy. Whilst folk like IQ will complain that anything less than 192 isn't worth it, I've also heard stories about a mixed group of mp3 users, sound engineers and students studying sound engineering at college being taken to a dead sound chamber and being asked to give their opinions on various sound qualities in a blind test. And none of them could tell the difference between 192 and 128.

The only thing which we can guarantee you is correctly one hundred percent accurate is that anything below 128 is a waste of time.

anything below 128 i wouldnt bother with, 192 is preffered but if u have the bandwith and webspace then 224 is that little touch better, i always put my mp3's in 224, bigger files but that's never bothered me

I usually use VBR, 160-320. High quality and smallish size. :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirsha

The amount of just pure argument over this subject is crazy. Whilst folk like IQ will complain that anything less than 192 isn't worth it, I've also heard stories about a mixed group of mp3 users, sound engineers and students studying sound engineering at college being taken to a dead sound chamber and being asked to give their opinions on various sound qualities in a blind test. And none of them could tell the difference between 192 and 128.

The only thing which we can guarantee you is correctly one hundred percent accurate is that anything below 128 is a waste of time.

---

Dude if you can't hear the diff between 192 and 128 you need to get your ears checked.

Er.. not YOU personally... but anyone really.
It's one thing if you are someone off the street... but for anyone who's into production I would say the difference is very very noticeable... shockingly really. ;)

Hey. There really is no true answer tot his after a certain point because each song will react differently to different bitrate settings. Generally, if something is recorded at 128kbit and has a fair amount of hihats going on with other sounds in the mix, they tend to sound a bit strange or produce audio artifacts. One way that sometimes presents this is by making sure you aren't encoding in a joint stereo mode but, rather, compress each channel without one being compared to the other. There is likely a setting for that in your codec/software. Sometimes, you'll get the same problems with audio artifacts at 160kbit or 192kbit. If it's your music in it's purest digital state and you know how it sounds, best bet is trial and error. Start at the lowest bitrate you're willing to go (and starting at 160kbit is good because, generally, 128 will cause some noticable artifacts) and just see if the final output sounds close enough to your original track that it doesn't bother you. If it does, set the kbit a
notch higher and keep going.

i may get flamed for this, but i think only the best quality is acceptable if you're selling the files. i use lame to encode at 320 constant bitrate, and that's the only way i'll play the files in a live set. if it's just for listening, then lame with the --alt -preset standard switch should be OK. i think it's important to avoid crap sounding MP3s, as that's how the format got a bad name to begin with.

Well while we are on the subject i thought this might be appropriate....

For all you soundforge users who SEEM to have a problem with MP3 encoding i found something that i think is a valuable tool.

www.Borschdfresser.de.vu

LAMP XP. No adware, a very simple fastworking GUI based on the LAME codec and totally traansparent in function. AM really loving it. I really like programs that have been made by enthusiasts they tend to work properly, simply and cost nothing. :clap:

Am i :neutral: the only one who thinks that free programs written by people who care are better than ones ya pay for? (i know its a generalisation :doh: , but....)

;) :roll: