MP3s

[filkertom]

So, are the 192 Kbps good enough for you guys? What about the 128 Kbps? Is the trade-off on sound quality, download speed and storage space in good balance, or what?

Of course there's a reason I'm asking.

ETA: Keep 'em comin'. The reason I'm asking is an upcoming tweak to things. I wanted to make sure that the 128 Kb freebies and 192 Kb pay-items were both worth it for the right reasons. Radio stations want 320 Kbps, which is very close to actual .wav quality; that's another part of it. I may end up having three levels of audio available before I'm done.

ETA2: Just so you guys know, I will not be switching to a non-.wav lossless format (e.g., FLAC) anytime soon. The reason is very simple: MP3s work on everything. The highest quality audio will always be available on the CDs or CD-Rs, with the exception of any live recordings that I do myself with the H4, which are always going to be at 192 Kbps, a very good bit rate for that sort of field recording.

Comments

[sstaver.livejournal.com]

I think 192 Kbps is better.
With how fast the Internet is, download speed isn't an issue.
Sound quality would be more important.
Especially since storage space is pretty much a non-issue,
Heck, they have 120GB iPods, and if you can put 9000 songs on 30GB, I think I'd much rather have higher quality.

[allandaros.livejournal.com]

I have a tin ear, and can't really tell the quality difference between a 192 and a 128 Kbps.

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

Same here.

Add in the fact that I do most of my listening in my rusty, creaky, loud, 1993 Dodge Dakota with ticking timing/lifter noises there is little point in me playing _anything_ better than 128k.

Environment can make quite a difference. ;-)

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I really can't hear a substantial difference between 128kbps and 192. For the iTom download material, I stick with 128. Since I'm a subscribed member of the FuMP, I get the 192, because I can.

Storage space being as cheap as it is, and download speed never really being a problem for me (I've been on broadband or campus networks forever), my concerns tend to come down simply to cost and convenience.

[ozfuture.livejournal.com]

i prefer my stuff in 192, just becasue i cant hear a difference dosnt mean i dont want to better quality version :)

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

I like 192 when I can get it, will accept 128 if I cant

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

I think the biz model the Fump is doing (128 free, 192 or more for $1) is still the best. I can't tell the diff between near CD quality (128) and Better than Cd quality (192 or above)

[sethb.livejournal.com]

192 is nowhere near "better than CD"; it isn't even close to CD (especially on challenging music).

[ohari.livejournal.com]

I, FWIW, cannot tell the difference in anything 128K and above, except in extreme volume.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't know- it would take me most of a day (or five or six hours if I stop doing anything else whatever with my connection) to download one song.

Dialup: the strongest possible case in favor of CDs.

[jeffreycwells.livejournal.com]

Brother!

*shares vodka*

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

I'm happy with the 192s. They're a good size for my music player and hard drive, and deliver sound with which I'm happy.

[budsharpe.livejournal.com]

I can always hear a difference between 128 and 192. I would prefer 192 in every case.

[jasperjones22.livejournal.com]

Since I'm on an ASUS till I can get my desktop fixed (being a poor college student isn't fun) I go for smaller file sizes whenever possible.

[brmj.livejournal.com]

I don't really mind the 128. I notice a little difference under ideal conditions, but never anything much. One thing I wouldn't mind, though, is for the music to be available in a free format, such as ogg vorbis.

[tikiera.livejournal.com]

I am always happier with higher. 192 is normally my lowest I go when I get a choice. Anything I own on CD is ripped to 320, only my online purchases go lower.

If you were selling music I bought in 320, would have been willing to pay $1-2 more for that privilege, if that info helps you.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I'm a confirmed believer in FLAC when I can get it, and the highest possible bitrate of MP3 when I can't. (The MP3s I create from FLAC for my listening are at 192.) Keep bringing the 192kbps files, unless you want to go to 192/320 rates.

Is there any reason not to go to VBR if filesize is the issue?

[hms42]

I think my CD ripping and conversion software is set to 128kb, but then again, I can't hear the difference either.

As for my preferences..... I just got about 200gb of recordings at GaFilk and Conflikt..... I like .wav files. (16bit or 24bit for the zoom.)

[rook543.livejournal.com]

I WANT MY 8-TRACK TAPES BABY!!

[david-stowell.livejournal.com]

When I was in music production school, we compared .wav files with .mp3 files at various levels of compression for audible sound degradation. If you listen closely, even 320 Kbps files showed some degradation. So, for my money, I don't download - I still buy CDs and play them in a CD player with good headphones.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

.flac, .shn, .ape, etc. are all lossless compression, so the quality matches CD.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Honestly I have a hard time telling the difference and since I have broadband I'll probably just keep doing what I'm doing. That is downloading the free versions then buying the collections like what you did with iTom. I have to start considering hard drive space since I don't want to upgrade my computer just yet (I'm waiting for Windows 7 and USB 3.0 first).

Doesn't the value of having a high bitrate depend on the initial recording? If someone recorded a concert on a video camera (VHS tape), does it make a difference if you hear it at 128 or 192 or 320? Likewise, I don't think an audio book needs a 320, or even a 192, provided you understand all the words.

[killernurd.livejournal.com]

Personally, I rip my discs at 256 Kbps, but that's simply because I can tell the difference. I don't worry much about disc space (with 1.5 TB of space in my desktop, I have no reason to...), so I don't bother with small files.

I think that 128 is fine, for free stuff, but 192 is kinda on the low end of what I'd be willing to pay for. I prefer 256 or 320 Kbps if I'm shelling out cash for it.

*shrugs*

[vik_thor]

I'm one of the ones who don't hear much (if any) difference between them.
As someone else mentioned, I will often buy the higher quality (both to support, and just to have the better quality. Much like when buying books at a used book store, I'll pay a bit more to get a better quality book.)

[scs-11.livejournal.com]

On computer speakers, I'll usually hear a difference between 128 and 192. For more serious listening (or when I want to make the walls shake) I dump the audio off to the good stereo. On that, I can hear the difference between 192 and 320.

When spending money on recordings, I won't buy below 256 unless it's an audiobook. Or someone I especially like. :-)

At this point my hearing is degraded enough I almost never notice a difference between 320 and original source.

[danceswithlife]

I don't have a problem with the freebie level of recordings, and with your music am not enough of an audiophile to actually notice the difference between the mp3 collections I buy and those I download for free.

[tommytoony.livejournal.com]

I'm a snob...292 or higher.

[kendaer.livejournal.com]

All of my CD rips are done in 256Kb because I can actually hear the difference between that and 192Kb. 128Kb is (to my ear) horrid quality for most things. IMHO, 128Kb would be alright for free, but if I was going to pay for it, I'd want at least 256Kb.

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

I recommend AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding). It's a better compression algorithm so it's better quality at any given bitrate than MP3. And the AAC tags seem to be more stable than MP3/ID3 (probably because there are multiple different, non-compatible versions of the ID3 tag).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

There are two problems with AAC: (1) It's a proprietary format (possibly requiring licensing; I don't know for certain), but that leads to (2) not everyone has the ability to play it back. MP3s are universally playable (including both computer software and standalone hardware); if a musician must distribute in a lossy format, MP3 is the way to go.

[philady.livejournal.com]

I've never been able to tell the difference between 128 and 192.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

My preference is for 192 at least. That's what I rip my CDs to for my ipod. That said, if someone is giving me something for free I'm not going to gripe about the bit rate.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

I prefer 192Ks. 128K was fine years ago when 10G was all you could have on a computer. But today, even with my 2yr old drives, I have more capacity than data to fill them and I prefer better sound over smaller size.

But don't go to 320Kbps. At that rate, you may as well just leave them as WAVs because the filesize is the same.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

I can tell the difference between 128 and 192 and 256. I can only tell the difference between 256 and higher if the audio pro who put the song together did a very good job of it, but by then the improvements are so minor it's not worth worrying about. When I rip CDs I always use lossless because: a) storage space is abundant, and b) you never know what the future will bring.

I got burned by this advancing technology before. Had an MP3 player a long, long time ago and there really was no difference between 64k and 128k. Since it had miniscule memory I ripped everything to 64k. Then I got an iPod when they first came out. Suddenly everything at 128 sounded much better and 256 sounded terrific, while everything at 64 sounded like a wax cylinder recorded in a shoebox at the far end of a warehouse. Lessoned learned.

As for your offerings, 128 is fine for free samples, but I would like 256 for the purchased tunes because I can tell the difference and every time I get better earbuds the difference is more pronounced. As for the format, like you said everything plays MP3. Don't worry about alternate formats until you're successful enough to hire an assistant who can translate your songs into a dozen different formats and post them all on your web site.