# Bit rate for playback



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have ripped all my music to 128 kbps wma files, but am getting tight on space with my mp3 player. I had a 2BG player and recently upgraded to a 4GB. Really can't go higher as there are few if any players out there that have the AAA battery in more than 2 GB. Anyway, I recently coded some music to 64 kbps with fine results, but one piece that had some background noise/distortion got worse. 

What bit rate do you use for mp3 players and why?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I can't listen to anything less than 256kbps or the compression and loss of quality simply drives me insane. 512kbps is bearable. Even at this resolution I can't listen to music for prolonged periods through a decent hi-fi system. It has to be lossless or not at all for me.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I use OGG/Vorbis at 192 kbps on my Sansa, which severely limits the amount of music I can put on it. That's okay, though, because I don't have a wide selection that I like to listen to when I'm on the go like that. On my computer, I keep as much of my music as I can in FLAC format.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not at all fussy, but I wouldn't go below 128. Typically, mine are 192 or a little higher - space isn't a problem as I have a mobile device with 16GB, and I don't keep all of my music on it at once.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

TallPaul said:


> I have ripped all my music to 128 kbps wma files, but am getting tight on space with my mp3 player. I had a 2BG player and recently upgraded to a 4GB. Really can't go higher as there are few if any players out there that have the AAA battery in more than 2 GB. Anyway, I recently coded some music to 64 kbps with fine results, but one piece that had some background noise/distortion got worse.
> 
> What bit rate do you use for mp3 players and why?


Below 128 I really start to notice the difference, so I wouldn't go lower.

Do you have to have an MP3 player that uses AAA batteries? My suggestion is going with a Sansa player. They have internal rechargable batteries - sure, eventually they no longer hold their charge, but the Sansas are cheap enough that they are worth it, and in a few years time, you may want to upgrade anyway. The thing I like about the Sansas (either the Fuze or the Clip) is that they have card slots for MicroSD cards, so you can expand the memory. I have a 4GB Clip+ with an 8GB MicroSD card, all for under $100. Sansas get good ratings on sound quality. The Clip+ is nice and small, but unlike the Apple iPod Shuffle, it has a screen!


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

And the Sansa will play FLAC and OGG/Vorbis files.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

DrMike said:


> And the Sansa will play FLAC and OGG/Vorbis files.


Does it do that out of the box, now? I got an old refurbished one and had to install Rockbox (alternative firmware) to do that. I actually installed it because the v. 1 Sansa firmware supported using it as a USB mass-storage device, but not SDHC, and v. 2 supported SDHC, but not USB mass-storage, while Rockbox supported both.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

I have not done anything to the firmware, other than regularly update Sansa's firmware, and I regularly play FLAC files. I haven't tried OGG/Vorbis.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Well my ear may not be that good, but 128 kbps sounds great even on my 100 watt circa 1980s Radio Shack amp in the car. Mostly I am listening on earbuds. I know some claim that vinyl sounds better than digital and I don't doubt that there is something to it. But like a light bulb cycling about 60 times a second, most people don't see it. Still, I do see a cause for caution on going below 128 kbps. I will certainly not convert my entire collection, but will selectively do 64 if I need more room. I still have nearly a gig remaining.

I am just not a fan of rechargable in the unit, though do use rechargable AAA batteries. If I go on a trip I can take disposables and simply flip batteries, not to worry about plugging in to charge. I like independence such as that.

Oh, and I heard that wma is better than mp3 format, that 128 wma is as good as 256 mp3. Maybe true to some degree?

Now where I have had trouble with the 64 kbps is in choral works, though that may be coincidence. Fedelio and Boris Godunov play fine in 64, but Missa Solemnis did not. and it seems the 4th movement of Beethoven's ninth did not either.

Anybody know how many dimensions are needed to represent a musical sound? We have note, tone, color, etc. If we get more than 2-3 dimensions, I could see how even 128 kbps could be limiting.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> I can't listen to anything less than 256kbps or the compression and loss of quality simply drives me insane. 512kbps is bearable. Even at this resolution I can't listen to music for prolonged periods through a decent hi-fi system. It has to be lossless or not at all for me.


May I ask what format were you reffering to (when mentioning bitrates)?


TallPaul said:


> I have ripped all my music to 128 kbps wma files, but am getting tight on space with my mp3 player. I had a 2BG player and recently upgraded to a 4GB. Really can't go higher as there are few if any players out there that have the AAA battery in more than 2 GB. Anyway, I recently coded some music to 64 kbps with fine results, but one piece that had some background noise/distortion got worse.
> 
> What bit rate do you use for mp3 players and why?


Unfortunately, bellow 64k there's not much to hope about, no matter which format/encoder is used. But if you're tempted to go bellow 64k anyway, try mono (if that is an option for you at all), because at very low bitrates stereo gets significantly worse than mono.

edit:


> Oh, and I heard that wma is better than mp3 format, that 128 wma is as good as 256 mp3. Maybe true to some degree?


Bellow 128k, many formats outplay mp3. Aside from wma, try also AAC.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

It all depends on the format. MP3 is known as a lossy format - that is, in order to compress the file, some information is lost. AAC, FLAC, OGG/Vorbis, are all lossless. They don't lose information as they are compressed. However, you typically can't compress them into as small of files as with lossy formats. At the same bitrate, a lossless format is going to always sound better than a lossy format.

I went through this agonizing at one point, but finally settled on 160 kbps as my settling point. I can't tell a difference at this bitrate. Sure, it takes up more room, but honestly, a couple of GB of music should last you a good long while, even at 160 kbps. I gave up trying to fit my entire library on my player. I enjoy going through from time to time and selecting new music to put on the player. I used to have an MP3 player that ran on batteries, but with as much money as I spent on batteries, I figured it wasn't worth it. And the rechargable batteries just don't last as long, and take a while to recharge. And you can buy car chargers, or charge the MP3 player from your computer, or from a wall outlet - the Sansas use the standard mini USB cable that so many electronics are using these days.

But your choice. Honestly, the music sounds to "electronic" at 64 kbps to me. More of a hiss, and other issues. But if it works for you, and you can handle the sound, why not?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Thanks all. I will keep most at 128 kbps and rotate my library. As for batteries, I got some nice rechargable AAA batteries and they work wonderfully. MP3 players are extremely variable on battery life. I have a Centon that eats a battery in 8 hours. The 4GB I just bought (Coby) is fantastic. My rechargable AAA batteries are lasting close to 40 hours playing time. My 2GB Coby was closer to probably 16, but now I am guessing. I do like the Coby players as they appear and feel very durable, though are limited compared to say an Ipod I guess.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

I avoid the iPod - I don't know why, I just do. They are overpriced, and you can get really good ones for less. They do look nicer, and the new Touch ones are really nice. But I REALLY don't like the fact that they don't support expansion cards to boost memory.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> I avoid the iPod - I don't know why, I just do. They are overpriced, and you can get really good ones for less. They do look nicer, and the new Touch ones are really nice. But I REALLY don't like the fact that they don't support expansion cards to boost memory.


Ditto this plus other compatibility issues for the iPhone.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

DrMike said:


> It all depends on the format. MP3 is known as a lossy format - that is, in order to compress the file, some information is lost. AAC, FLAC, OGG/Vorbis, are all lossless.


OGG/Vorbis is lossy, so is AAC (maybe you ment to say ALAC?). On the other hand, FLAC indeed is lossless. 


DrMike said:


> I went through this agonizing at one point, but finally settled on 160 kbps as my settling point. I can't tell a difference at this bitrate.


Virtually no one can (if proper software is used, of course), but placebo is strong and many people believe they can. Some highly unusual audio could make an exception, but for all listening purposes 160k is indistinguishable from original.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

really? 160kbps mp3 is indistinguishable? Im not one to advocate placebo effect, but I can tell between 160kbps and 320kbps fairly easily, usually theres the bit crusher effect on the high frequencies which make them sound really digital and annoying. However for classical music you dont usually encounter frequencies above 10khz that are noticeable (unlike other genres)


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> really? 160kbps mp3 is indistinguishable? Im not one to advocate placebo effect, but I can tell between 160kbps and 320kbps fairly easily, usually theres the bit crusher effect on the high frequencies which make them sound really digital and annoying. However for classical music you dont usually encounter frequencies above 10khz that are noticeable (unlike other genres)


I listen almost exclusively to classical, and a 160kbps MP3 is indistinguishable, to my ear, from CD quality. The Sansa MP3 players get good reviews on their sound quality, so perhaps this might be an issue as well. The 160kbps MP3s sound much clearer and crisp on my Sansa than they do with my headphones plugged into my laptop, where I tend to get a lot more distortion at the higher frequencies (opera is horrible for this reason, so I will never listen to it on my laptop, but comes off crystal clear on my Sansa).


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> really? 160kbps mp3 is indistinguishable? Im not one to advocate placebo effect, but I can tell between 160kbps and 320kbps fairly easily, usually theres the bit crusher effect on the high frequencies which make them sound really digital and annoying. However for classical music you dont usually encounter frequencies above 10khz that are noticeable (unlike other genres)


May I ask what type of audio material was used, on what equipment it was played (which speakers, or model of headphones), which software made mp3's, was it double blind test, and how many trials were there? (and also how many trials were recognized correctly?)

Might seem as nitpicking, but those are standard ways of testing transparency of audio codecs, so I'm just asking, no bad intentions here. (I have to be extra nice to people, Alma's got his eye on me)


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

graaf said:


> edit:
> 
> 
> TallPaul said:
> ...


WMA, AAC, and OGG/Vorbis were all created to solve deficiencies in MP3, so the claim that WMA is better than MP3 may have some truth in it, but it's really hard to definitively say that one codec is better than another. It all depends on so many different factors. Chances are, your MP3 player doesn't support AAC, FLAC, or OGG without third-party firmware, so you're probably stuck with WMA or MP3. I do know that, in most cases, WMA results in much bigger files than MP3 at the same bitrate.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

TallPaul said:


> I have ripped all my music to 128 kbps wma files, but am getting tight on space with my mp3 player. I had a 2BG player and recently upgraded to a 4GB. Really can't go higher as there are few if any players out there that have the AAA battery in more than 2 GB. Anyway, I recently coded some music to 64 kbps with fine results, but one piece that had some background noise/distortion got worse.
> 
> What bit rate do you use for mp3 players and why?


the best way to save bits is by using a variable bitrate (VBR), eg. the LAME MP3 encoder at setting -V5 (~130 kbps) when space is tight, and -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V0 (~245 kbps) for hi-fi quality, depending on the listener and application.

personally i've done ABX tests comparing lossless vs LAME and the highest setting i could distinguish successfully was -V2, so I always go for -V0 when storage isn't an issue. otherwise i don't mind going as low as -V5.

if your player supports it, AAC is even more advanced and is considered the next step beyond MP3. the Nero codec for AAC is widely used. both LAME and Nero AAC are supported by foobar2k for an easy batch conversion.

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php
http://www.nero.com/enu/technologies-aac-codec.html
http://www.foobar2000.org/download

ps. of course, if you want to save space over 128 kbps CBR, you'll have to go with -V6 (~115 kbps) or lower, -V7 (~110 kbps), -V8 (~85 kbps), etc. but the advantage is that an encoder in VBR mode intelligently allocates the bitrate depending on signal complexity, so practically that means your files are smaller but sound just as good.


----------



## Dster (Oct 3, 2011)

I got some music in ogg format, but my MP3 player can only play MP3 files. Can someone recommend a converter, free naturally?


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I can clearly hear the difference between 128 and 192 but not between 192 and 256 so I stick to 192.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Dster said:


> I got some music in ogg format, but my MP3 player can only play MP3 files. Can someone recommend a converter, free naturally?


you can do it with foobar, although it will warn you that transcoding from a lossy format to another is not recommended.

you need to provide foobar with the encoders, but you do the rest seamlessly through the interface.

http://www.vorbis.com/setup_windows/


----------



## Dster (Oct 3, 2011)

thank you. I worked like a charm


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am largely limited to MP3 or WMA on these budget players. I have some MP3 as they came that way on download, but all my rips are done wma. I have been changing a lot of my music to 64 kbps and not noticing any difference with the earbud. I should get a mono converter as that would be a great space saver and then I could listen with a single bud off a normal earbud set. Now I have a one bud from Scansound that combines the signals. I am still reluctant to change some of my favorite pieces to 54 though. Piano concertos seem to work fine on 64. Only the more complex music, orchestra with vocals is likely to be a problem. If I had a better ear I might not like it but with my ear it seems to work.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

TallPaul said:


> I am largely limited to MP3 or WMA on these budget players.


If that seems like a problem for you, check http://www.rockbox.org/ to see if your player is supported, and if it is, install it.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

graaf said:


> May I ask what type of audio material was used, on what equipment it was played (which speakers, or model of headphones), which software made mp3's, was it double blind test, and how many trials were there? (and also how many trials were recognized correctly?)
> 
> Might seem as nitpicking, but those are standard ways of testing transparency of audio codecs, so I'm just asking, no bad intentions here. (I have to be extra nice to people, Alma's got his eye on me)


well

electronic music, particularly house/trance/dance is noticed throughout the different bit rates, so the moment you go 192 its a big no no for me on those types of tracks. This was noticeable on my sony mdr-xd200 phones, sennheiser HD435, and on my KRK Rokit 5 studio monitors. It may not be distinguishable to certain classical music, since you dont encounter those hissing high frequencies that are artificial (unless theres alot of crashes in a symphony) nor is the stereo spectrum really extreme (stereo phasing, inversion, sounds coming from behind rather than front)
just to clarify


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

DrMike said:


> And the Sansa will play FLAC and OGG/Vorbis files.


Hey, I've heard very good opinions about Sansa Clip+, is it really that good? What's the highest storage limit available? Can I upgrade it with my own memory card? Do you use a portable amp with it? I've heard FiiO E11 is one of the best portable amps out there and I'm really considering buying the two in the near future. Thanks.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

TallPaul said:


> I should get a mono converter as that would be a great space saver and then I could listen with a single bud off a normal earbud set.


Philip mentioned foobar2000, I also use it, this is how mono converter looks for me (I do have a bit older version 1.0.3, but the idea is that foobar does it):


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Florestan said:


> Well my ear may not be that good, but 128 kbps sounds great even on my 100 watt circa 1980s Radio Shack amp in the car. Mostly I am listening on earbuds.


You drive wearing earbuds??


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Delicious Manager said:


> You drive wearing earbuds??


I see it almost every day, either that or their phone.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

> Well my ear may not be that good, but 128 kbps sounds great even on my 100 watt circa 1980s Radio Shack amp in the car. Mostly I am listening on earbuds.





Delicious Manager said:


> You drive wearing earbuds??


That was a very old post because I haven't had that Radio Shack amp in operation for four years now. I was talking about listening through the speakers in the truck through the amp. Other than in my vehicle, I listen on an earbud (one not two). As my household does have vehicles that do not have a CD player, I do drive sometimes with that one earbud and it is not a problem as I am fully connected to the world (horns, sirens etc.) with the open ear.

Scansound sells a nice single earbud that electronically combines the two channels. This is what I use:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Pugg said:


> I see it almost every day, either that or their phone.


Yes, I see it every day also. Wearing both buds or worse the set of headphones must make it hard to hear sirens and horns. Cheaper than a proper car stereo I guess, and then the car stereo won't get stolen because there isn't one.


----------

