Uncategorized

128, 192, 256 or 320?

By David
March 25th, 2008

Share:
 
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Google Bookmarks

While cleaning out a couple rooms and closets in my home, I came across several dozen albums on CD I either thought I lost, was happy to find or thought that I no longer needed to own physically but should at least save the music digitally. With that thought, I ask the question… given that disk space is approaching a place somewhat infinite relative to cost, what quality and format should you save your digital music as?

There is ranting and raving about how the quality of the MP3 music format is sub-par relative to a CD or vinyl recording, but the reality is that most people have become accustomed to the 128kbs encode, which basically sounds as if a vacuum sucked out all the highs, lows and any sense of the room the music was recorded in. Of course given digital recording techniques, such nuances were never actually part of the actual music as well as many people at the record companies wanting the music to sound LOUD and punchy so it screams when that non-existent radio-play hypothetically occurs.

Given how super-convenient & portable digital music is, it is very difficult to resist wanting to encode your CDs and even vinyl as digital files for playback in the home, car and on the go. But do you go with the high-end encoding of 320kbs which main strike against it is the amount of space needed per file or do you go with the lowest tolerable setting of 128kbs which allows for more songs on a hard drive or portable device?

There’s also a question of format… MP3 is lossy compression, so you will lose components of the native sound recording, but the reality for better or worse is that most people do not notice in a casual music setting such things. There are lossless audio codecs such as FLAC and Apple Lossless which retain close to all of the original recording, but can be up to ten times the size of the same file compressed.

Some scientists familiar with sound and the brain have said that on a higher level, the brain actually reacts to brittle sounds by instantly portraying the sound as something you do not want to hear again, regardless if you like the song or not… the sonic waves hit your ears as little nails as opposed to sonic candy.

What’s your stance on digitizing your own audio collection? And if you’re a bad person and have exchanged audio files with a friend or stranger, have you rejected music files based on sound quality? Does Michael Bolton’s greatest hits sound worse at 128kbs than 320kbs?


Comments (3)

Add a Comment
COMMENTS (3)
matt said:

OU812?

Eric said:

No way, Music is music, and the labels already make money off of the songs. If I had to pay the artist directly, I wouldn’t steal music, but I don’t care about some giant company picking on the little musicians. Now, big musicians are whining about how much money they are making, come on. Try working for a living, not singing.

iSaac said:

This is a question I approached very seriously. I listen to a couple different types of music, but i grew up on hiphop. To set my own personal standard right from the get go I took a KRS-ONE track i knew VERY WELL and ripped it @ both 128 and 256k bitrates. Then I spent a good 20 minutes listening to the track from the CD and the 128 and 256k .mp3s. Now, I’m no audiophile, but I could not for the life of me tell a discernable difference between the actual CD and the 256k track. Now, this is all in a cheap $10 pair of headphones mind you, but I was satisfied. And furthermore, these days I have even begun ripping CD’s I purchase or “borrow” @ 224kbps and still, I am pleased with the results. I dont need lossless and I can enjoy a 128kbps track. But I am happy with the system I set up.

PEACE
ISAAC



Voices is an original podcast series that brings to life compelling stories featured on JamsBio
Buffers, Bridges & Bubbles
Love is Strange
The Birds, the Bees & Me