whats the best bitrate to write cds for ur car stereos??

vebmetal · 8th May 2008, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by mithun

My opinion is that if you are having a ICE system which is priced below 15,000, there is no point in writing MP3's at 320 kbps. You won't be able to notice the difference b/w 160 & 320 kbps.

So better stick to 160 kbps !

On the other hand, one day you may want to upgrade to a better system where you can tell this difference. I would suggest a minimum of 256, and recommended 320. Flash drives are cheap as hell today, and storage shouldn't be a problem. So don't compromise SQ for storage space.

navin · 8th May 2008, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by vebmetal

... I would suggest a minimum of 256, and recommended 320. ....

Just remember that usig todays algorithims VBR = constant sound quality and CBR = variable sound quality although at 256kbps+ the differences will be small. Still I'd say use VBR if you want to save some diskspace and retain quality.

amit_mechengg · 8th May 2008, 23:40

today i downloaded the bitrate changing software ALT MP3 Bitrate changer, and changed the bitrate of some songs from 96/128 kpbs to 320 kpbs. then i loaded these songs in my pendrive along with the original songs. the original were 5-6 mb and new ones 13-14 mb

but alas, i didnt find any difference. i listened again and again carefully. where exactly do u find the difference in quality?

help.

abhibh · 8th May 2008, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by amit_mechengg

today i downloaded the bitrate changing software ALT MP3 Bitrate changer, and changed the bitrate of some songs from 96/128 kpbs to 320 kpbs. then i loaded these songs in my pendrive along with the original songs. the original were 5-6 mb and new ones 13-14 mb

but alas, i didnt find any difference. i listened again and again carefully. where exactly do u find the difference in quality?

help.

amit you will not find any difference even if u convert those 128kbps songs to wav. The encoding source remains the same i.e. 128Kbps so if u convert it to 320 or 265 there will not be any difference except for the filesize.

amit_mechengg · 9th May 2008, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by abhibh

amit you will not find any difference even if u convert those 128kbps songs to wav. The encoding source remains the same i.e. 128Kbps so if u convert it to 320 or 265 there will not be any difference except for the filesize.

then what method do i use to convert these mp3 songs to better sound quality. are there any options in nero or any other programs ?

abhibh · 9th May 2008, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by amit_mechengg

then what method do i use to convert these mp3 songs to better sound quality. are there any options in nero or any other programs ?

Nothing will help amit. You cannot improve the quality of 128kbps MP3. Though there was a way which i used but it only improved bass and treble used to edit MP3 in softwares like sound forge increase bass volume etc etc but its of no use.

Used to do it when i had less capacity HDD's.

vebmetal · 9th May 2008, 01:39

Amit, the bitrate you originally rip the mp3 off the CD is the best SQ that the mp3 is going to have. While you may notionally increase the bitrate, it cannot increase the SQ.

Think of it this way. If you record from a CD to a cassette there is loss of SQ. Nothing you do will take the tape sound back to CD quality levels (or in fact any better than tape cassette levels).

You will notice a significant difference between these two:

mp3 ripped from CD at 320kbps
mp3 ripped from CD at 128kbps.

abhinav.gupta88 · 9th May 2008, 02:59

I Prefer 160 or 192 kbps. Good Sound.

Difference in the sound coming from a 128kbps and 320 kbps is noticable when u put the same song at different rates on full volume on your cellphone.

Ankure · 9th May 2008, 03:10

320 kbps all the way. The sound difference is a lot.

low_bass_makker · 9th May 2008, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by abhinav.gupta88

I Prefer 160 or 192 kbps. Good Sound.

Difference in the sound coming from a 128kbps and 320 kbps is noticable when u put the same song at different rates on full volume on your cellphone.

I would consider it that you are listing to headphones.

Magma · 9th May 2008, 14:05

EAC can be configured to use LAME .3.97-3.98
the new DBpoweramp also uses LAme 3.97
My question : Has anyone observed any difference between the out puts of each ripper?
is there a difference? what is it and how much?

Why is it that on many forums EAC scores over DBpoweramp though they use the same encoder

navin · 9th May 2008, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magma

Why is it that on many forums EAC scores over DBpoweramp though they use the same encoder

EAC also uses Accuraterip and wapet.

mayurpalav · 9th May 2008, 14:28

Friends,

Does the clarity of the disc depend on the CD writing speed as well ?

For example, 320kbps@ 24X and 320kbps@ 8X

Will there be a significant difference ?

vebmetal · 9th May 2008, 14:56

Generally the slower you burn a disc the more properly it burns. But this is in relation to things like skipping in tracks, reading problems etc. If your player reads it fine, there is no difference in SQ.

Magma · 9th May 2008, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by navin

EAC also uses Accuraterip and wapet.

i could be mistaken - but a post on hydrogen says DB now uses accutrip as well.

what exactly is wapet?

8th May 2008, 23:40	#93
amit_mechengg Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pune Posts: 2,488 Thanked: 2,252 Times View My Garage	today i downloaded the bitrate changing software ALT MP3 Bitrate changer, and changed the bitrate of some songs from 96/128 kpbs to 320 kpbs. then i loaded these songs in my pendrive along with the original songs. the original were 5-6 mb and new ones 13-14 mb but alas, i didnt find any difference. i listened again and again carefully. where exactly do u find the difference in quality? help.
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 01:39	#97
vebmetal BHPian Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New Delhi Posts: 798 Thanked: 21 Times	Amit, the bitrate you originally rip the mp3 off the CD is the best SQ that the mp3 is going to have. While you may notionally increase the bitrate, it cannot increase the SQ. Think of it this way. If you record from a CD to a cassette there is loss of SQ. Nothing you do will take the tape sound back to CD quality levels (or in fact any better than tape cassette levels). You will notice a significant difference between these two: mp3 ripped from CD at 320kbps mp3 ripped from CD at 128kbps.
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 02:59	#98
abhinav.gupta88 Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Delhi , India Posts: 4,092 Thanked: 325 Times View My Garage	I Prefer 160 or 192 kbps. Good Sound. Difference in the sound coming from a 128kbps and 320 kbps is noticable when u put the same song at different rates on full volume on your cellphone.
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 03:10	#99
Ankure BHPian Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Delhi Posts: 63 Thanked: Once	320 kbps all the way. The sound difference is a lot.
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 14:05	#101
Magma BHPian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: mumbai Posts: 361 Thanked: 2 Times	EAC can be configured to use LAME .3.97-3.98 the new DBpoweramp also uses LAme 3.97 My question : Has anyone observed any difference between the out puts of each ripper? is there a difference? what is it and how much? Why is it that on many forums EAC scores over DBpoweramp though they use the same encoder
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 14:28	#103
mayurpalav BHPian Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Mumbai Posts: 138 Thanked: 66 Times	Friends, Does the clarity of the disc depend on the CD writing speed as well ? For example, 320kbps@ 24X and 320kbps@ 8X Will there be a significant difference ?
	() Thanks

9th May 2008, 14:56	#104
vebmetal BHPian Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New Delhi Posts: 798 Thanked: 21 Times	Generally the slower you burn a disc the more properly it burns. But this is in relation to things like skipping in tracks, reading problems etc. If your player reads it fine, there is no difference in SQ.
	() Thanks