# Which soundquality do you prefer?



## Duke (Mar 11, 2011)

I found it really intresting that I earlier have spent much time to search for all my files in FLAC format (which is less compressed than MP3) but finally realised that I actually prefer rather "raspy" MP3-formats from "average" recordings.

So what fileformats do you prefer and what kind of "quality" from the recordings do you prefer?

Note. This application is very usefull. Youtube -> MP3.
http://www.youtube-mp3.org/


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Duke said:


> I found it really intresting that I earlier have spent much time to search for all my files in FLAC format (which is less compressed than MP3) but finally realised that I actually prefer rather "raspy" MP3-formats from "average" recordings.
> 
> So what fileformats do you prefer and what kind of "quality" from the recordings do you prefer?
> 
> ...


Well I use the Iphone , so the vast majority of the music I listen is in MP3 format, though I believe that the best sound is Wav, its the purest and richest sound.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I use between 192 and 256 Kbps MP3... I don't get flac, it takes up a lot of disc space and iTunes won't play it... 

Does the youtube mp3 converter work? I've tried several youtube download tools - the one I'm using at the moment, keepvid, plus the other good ones I've tried, work great with videos but the mp3 quality is 40-50Kbps. Are they somehow not allowed to offer full quality mp3 conversion?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I prefer Cd's...............


----------



## Duke (Mar 11, 2011)

karenpat said:


> I use between 192 and 256 Kbps MP3... I don't get flac, it takes up a lot of disc space and iTunes won't play it...
> 
> Does the youtube mp3 converter work? I've tried several youtube download tools - the one I'm using at the moment, keepvid, plus the other good ones I've tried, work great with videos but the mp3 quality is 40-50Kbps. Are they somehow not allowed to offer full quality mp3 conversion?


I don't know to be honest but I get working listanable MP3 files at least.

The site is pretty slow though. Any other suggestion for this applikation?


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

WMA is the default in my computer but I have a lot of flacs too


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

MP3 is an old codec. It was optimised originally for use at 128 kbps. That doesn’t mean that it sounds best at that bit rate, only that its features in terms of how the compression from a CD source is achieved were set with that bit rate in mind as the most likely bit that would be used by users. That bit rate indeed was the most common case for many years, but subsequently higher bit rates of 192, 256 and 320 (maximum) became more common.

It is well known that 128 kbps MP3 is subject to various problems. You get poor top-end response because it cuts off the higher frequencies. The sound generally can be muffled due to lack of accuracy at which the audio samples are encoded. There is a lack of stereo image, with all the instruments tending to sound indistinct. Vocals sound sibilant. 

These issues get progressively resolved at bit rates of 160 kbps and higher. However, the best bit rate for any person depends on (i) the quality of the listening apparatus (headphone or loudspeaker, plus other hi-fi components), (ii) the quality of the listener’s ears, and (iii) the extent to which one seeks perfection. 

Flac is in uncompressed format and should sound much like a CD. 

These days, anything off the BBC i player is based on the much newer AAC codec, at either 192 kbps (for "listen again") or 320 kbps format (live stream). AAC is far more efficient than MP3 in that even at 128 kbps AAC this is broadly equivalent to 224-256 kbps MP3. 

However, the best rate available for the DAB radio system in the UK is 192 kbps, but this is on the MP2 codec, which is even older and less efficient than MP3. I reckon that 192 kbps MP2 is only about as good as 160 kbps MP3, at best.

Generally, I convert all music whether from CD or the BBC i player to 256-320 kbps MP3. This is because I prefer to listen to music on my PC, and I find the MP3 codec is better recognised on my preferred media playing software than is AAC. Besides, technical aspects apart, I cannot detect any noticeable improvements in sound quality above 224 kbps MP3, when using my PC set-up. Occasionally, I might play a CD but only on much better equipment I have, and such events are getting rarer and rarer, but a CD obviously sounds better than MP3.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I do most of my listening on my iPod, do most of my music is in mp3 and and mpeg-4.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Any of those formats is a "fast food: approach to classical music. Better than nothing, I suppose.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i prefer mp3.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

I prefer to sit in the same room as the performers.
That's the sound quality that won't be beat...
GG


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

iTunes Plus quality AAC, 256 kbps mp3, and ALAC/FLAC.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Full stereo for me (surround speakers, subwoofer, the works) playing CDs, cassettes, and LPs. In a more private setting, a nice Panasonic CD or cassette player with a Panasonic headphones known for their nice bass sound and a very decent treble. Soundwise? I prefer atmospheric yet penetrating sound, nothing dull or brittle, but plenty of warmth. No MP3's or iTunes or whatever: I distrust their sounds.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sound quality is a function of recording, mixing and mastering, not necessarily the file format. I'll take anything that is audibly transparent, which means AAC 256 VBR and up.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

bigshot said:


> Sound quality is a function of recording, mixing and mastering, not necessarily the file format. I'll take anything that is audibly transparent, which means AAC 256 VBR and up.


Indeed I agree. Bad mastering techniques with good encoding makes me hate that recording .


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

128 kbps mp3 works fine for me.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

To be honest I don't really care. The strength of the performance and the overall sound, transparency, warmth etc. of the recording is much more important to me than fidelity.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I have very much intentionally not trained myself to distinguish between encoding formats, on account of I don't hate money.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Florestan said:


> 128 kbps mp3 works fine for me.


that was the old iTunes format in AAC before they switched to iTunes Plus quality.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

I like the WAVE format but it takes up to much space on my computer you know.I love mp3 because i can put hours of music on my hard drive without taking up to much space.I once made a mp3 cd that lasts more than 4 hours.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I prefer CD but Flac is fine and I'll listen to mp3's in 320 stream on Spotify but I don't collect mp3 unless I have no other source. Too lossy for my tastes and for those who believe there is no difference should probably have a hearing test because their hearing loss has probably lead to their acceptance of lossy music.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Why people use iTunes baffles me. Its good a pretty tight interface - in the most negative sense, zero customizability - its feature pool is sub-par, doesn't support APE or FLAC (!) and resource hog of the highest degree. 

Come over to the foobar2000 side.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

As good as possible (lossless), with the cost of Tb hard drive's being at an all time low, I see no reason to use any lossy format!

/ptr


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

ptr said:


> As good as possible (lossless), with the cost of Tb hard drive's being at an all time low, I see no reason to use any lossy format!
> 
> /ptr


Exactly! I saw a 4TB drive at Sam's Club recently for only $119.00! That would store a whole lot of music. I bought a 2TB for around $70.00 about a year back and still only have it about 1/3 full.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> Exactly! I saw a 4TB drive at Sam's Club recently for only $119.00! That would store a whole lot of music. I bought a 2TB for around $70.00 about a year back and still only have it about 1/3 full.


I believe some popular operating systems have troubles with drives larger than 2tb.

I hope you've got a plan b for when that drive inevitably fails, by the way.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Better than these current physical storage options is one singular cloud storage option to satiate the insatiable desires of any music fan. At the cost of $50 a year/$95 for two years, it provides infinite storage space. Along with the option to send all your backed data on a physical drive [upto 4TB. If it crosses, they'll send two drives.]

The best service in the market. Haven't seen a single competitor as good as this one! I mean physical sending of backed up data. That's _innovation_.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Why people use iTunes baffles me. Its good a pretty tight interface - in the most negative sense, zero customizability - its feature pool is sub-par, doesn't support APE or FLAC (!) and resource hog of the highest degree.
> 
> Come over to the foobar2000 side.


Sorry but no native iPod support.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> that was the old iTunes format in AAC before they switched to iTunes Plus quality.


I used to use wma 128 kbps but in Linux there is no rip to wma that I am aware of. But I had heard that 128 wma is as good as 192 mp3 for some reason. Yet I perceive no difference. Ha, most of the loss in lossy formats is not going to matter since my ears are pretty lossy. :lol:



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Why people use iTunes baffles me. Its good a pretty tight interface - in the most negative sense, zero customizability - its feature pool is sub-par, doesn't support APE or FLAC (!) and resource hog of the highest degree.
> 
> Come over to the foobar2000 side.


I won't use I tunes because simple rip and drag/drop to the mp3 player works fine. I recently got a Sansa Clip and like it very much. Also I am a CD person, not into digital purchases unless necessary. I get the impression that itunes is like an automatic transmission in a car--you lose control of things to the computer.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> Any of those formats is a "fast food: approach to classical music. Better than nothing, I suppose.


Would you like that MP3 with cheese? I can supersize it up to 320 kbps for you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like to transfer everything to normal-bias cassette tape, then play it through an old Emerson stereo receiver, with Optimus 8" speakers. It kind of takes the digital edge off everything. :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I like to transfer everything to normal-bias cassette tape, then play it through an old Emerson stereo receiver, with Optimus 8" speakers. It kind of takes the digital edge off everything. :lol:


 Lets go back to reel-to-reel systems.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Lets go back to reel-to-reel systems.


noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

tapes get eaten up sadly enough..............


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry but no native iPod support.


To that, I say - here!

No need to be lethargic!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Tocatta* is the only person here I would listen to about all this; and he was banned back in 2011! That figures...


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> *Tocatta* is the only person here I would listen to about all this; and he was banned back in 2011! That figures...


Why was he banned?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> *Tocatta* is the only person here I would listen to about all this; and he was banned back in 2011! That figures...


Bigshot is another I wouldn't hesitate to take some advice from.


----------

