# audio quality and bitrate



## smartmind0007 (Nov 6, 2011)

i have recently purchased new 2.1 speakers. i love listening to songs hindi as well as english. i would like to know about audio bitrate and its effect on the audio quality..  thanx in adv


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 6, 2011)

bitrate is roughly the amount of info stored per second in a track/song.
it varies from 320 to 64 kbps
usually, 128 kbps is used to minimize filesize and quality loss, while 192 kbps is acceptable for normal audio devices, while audiophiles like me like to listen songs in full 320 kbps /

if your speakers cost less than 2k bucks, it doesnt matter if you use 128 or 320 kbps. just make sure its above 128 kbps, else quality degrades rapidly with decreasing bitrates

Bit rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sarath (Nov 6, 2011)

256kbps. Thats what your bitrate should be. Studies show humans cannot differentiate between 256 and 320 (source Engadget).

But most people still get 320kbps including me, just so as to not take any chances and for the psychological satisfaction 

So to summarise get 256 or 320kbps.


----------



## CA50 (Nov 6, 2011)

Higher bitrate == better sound quality == larger file size


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 6, 2011)

m4a-apple lossless audio -bitrate > 900 kbps
flac-opesource lossless audio - bitrate >900 kbps


----------



## Sarath (Nov 7, 2011)

^Thats audiophile grade, in case you are confused.


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 7, 2011)

lol y would i be when i own the sr325i


----------



## Zangetsu (Nov 7, 2011)

@anupupadhye13: listen to songs with bit rate > 192Kbps...

Try to listen FLAC once.


----------



## Sarath (Nov 7, 2011)

prabhu.wali said:


> lol y would i be when i own the sr325i



That was for the OP bro


----------



## Sarath (Nov 7, 2011)

Flac would kill his memory


----------



## sriharsha_madineni (Nov 7, 2011)

Well... I really didn't find any difference between a high bitrate flac and 320kbps version of same tracks when I did a blind test, stuck to 320kbps since then.


----------



## smartmind0007 (Nov 7, 2011)

thanx for reply guys.. i am not a big AP for that matter. 320 kbps seems enough  though 128 is not unbearable either..


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 7, 2011)

Sarath said:


> That was for the OP bro







sriharsha_madineni said:


> Well... I really didn't find any difference between a high bitrate flac and 320kbps version of same tracks when I did a blind test, stuck to 320kbps since then.



well not atleast with low end speakers


----------



## sriharsha_madineni (Nov 8, 2011)

prabhu.wali said:


> well not atleast with low end speakers



Did that blind test on a Brainwavz M2, Philips SHE 9501, Philips SHP 2700, Sony MDR EX -57 & Brainwavz Alpha with Nationite Nanite N2 as source


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 8, 2011)

"Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did."


----------



## Zangetsu (Nov 8, 2011)

prabhu.wali said:


> "Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that *for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media*.



due to virus or vaporization?


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 8, 2011)

lol no idea but m sure the above mentioned reasons are not

*www.cryinghorn.com/various/mp3lame_and_flac.jpg


----------



## sriharsha_madineni (Nov 8, 2011)

prabhu.wali said:


> "Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
> 
> I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did."



So let's say I had a 128kbps mp3's from 2000, they should be obliterated by now right, as per that theory 

So here's a mp3 that I had since 2001, and the waveform should be flat as per that theory, right!!!

*img210.imageshack.us/img210/8373/123iuy.th.jpg

*img833.imageshack.us/img833/4429/88964294.th.jpg

Jokes apart, I do agree that FLAC is better than mp3, but practically you can't find much difference unless you have a studio setup and rabbit ears. 

Next time, try it before you copy paste blogs 



> Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
> 
> I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.



*holy****ingshit40000.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-verdict-on-flac-vs-mp3.html


----------



## Zangetsu (Nov 8, 2011)

@prabhu.wali: I've never encountered this practically the loss of kbps in Mp3....
& u have written worse in optical media...then Planet M will have to shutdown the old year stocks of Music CDs....


----------



## sriharsha_madineni (Nov 8, 2011)

Zangetsu said:


> @prabhu.wali: I've never encountered this practically the loss of kbps in Mp3....
> & u have written worse in optical media...then Planet M will have to shutdown the old year stocks of Music CDs....



Exactly my point regarding the optical media


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 8, 2011)

sriharsha_madineni said:


> So let's say I had a 128kbps mp3's from 2000, they should be obliterated by now right, as per that theory
> 
> So here's a mp3 that I had since 2001, and the waveform should be flat as per that theory, right!!!
> 
> ...



lol actually it was taken from headfi.org which is one of the more respected high end audio forums but from my experience the mp3 from 2007 sound way sh**y,i jus like be on the safer side who know in a couple of years i might own i high end setup and then it may matter

And it'd be better to compare the then audio with now


----------



## Zangetsu (Nov 9, 2011)

video & audio file never degrades in quality as time passes


----------



## prabhu.wali (Nov 9, 2011)

well it may not be distinguishable


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 9, 2011)

if it does, its not due to any inherent degradation of the file, its due to the atrophy of the medium itself.

for example, the cd's with high bitrate tracks might get old, and the plastic might turn slightly opaque, reducing the quality of signals bouncing off the surface, etc.


----------



## warrior047 (Dec 8, 2011)

have songs since 2003...at 128kbps...with low end speakers, then they sounded ok...now they sound lil crap with mid range speakers....but didnt see this lowering of bitrate folks...


----------



## AcceleratorX (Dec 8, 2011)

Just for the record: As long as the MP3 file itself remains uncorrupted, the audio quality will not deteriorate. The bit rate refers to the number of bits transmitted per second for a digitally transmitted signal. Since this is entirely handled by audio hardware, the HDD losses do not account here unless data has been corrupted on the HDD.

IMO 160kbps is the way to go for portable, low space, decent quality audio. Anything less loses out on a lot of the high frequencies.


----------

