Back | Reverse | Quick Reply | Post Reply |

Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by gendou on 2005-04-05 02:10:40
1. Start with a short audio clip (herein referred to as "original.aif")
(44100 Hz Stereo 16-bit big endian uncompressed)
2. Encode using various bitrates (160, 192, 224, 256, 320 used herein)
3. Decode each mp3 to AIFF audio (using aforementioned format)
4. Compare each SHORT UNSIGNED INT in the sound files.
AIFF is encoded using 2-byte (32-bit) integers.
This means we can easily compare the OUTPUT of two AIFF files.
Simply read along two files at once, 2-bytes at a time.
Compare the absolute value of the UNSIGNED SHORT INT values.
Keep a running sum and divide by filesize/2 at the when you reach EOF!
(See included perl script for calculating this difference)




Encoder: LAME version 3.96.1
Decoder: Quicktime 6.5.2

672822 4 Apr 23:51 original.aif

672822 4 Apr 23:59 160.aif
672822 4 Apr 23:59 192.aif
672822 4 Apr 23:59 224.aif
672822 4 Apr 23:59 256.aif
672822 4 Apr 23:59 320.aif

79417 4 Apr 23:56 160.mp3
94882 4 Apr 23:56 192.mp3
110346 4 Apr 23:56 224.mp3
125811 4 Apr 23:57 256.mp3
156740 4 Apr 23:57 320.mp3

diff.pl original.aif 160.aif: 993.048645852841
diff.pl original.aif 192.aif: 990.506502462761
diff.pl original.aif 224.aif: 991.192808796383
diff.pl original.aif 256.aif: 993.110284740986
diff.pl original.aif 320.aif: 993.842243565163

diff.pl 160.aif 192.aif: 49.7214270639188
diff.pl 160.aif 224.aif: 28.6847851438525
diff.pl 160.aif 256.aif: 21.6338526385879
diff.pl 160.aif 320.aif: 23.8804349441606

diff.pl 192.aif 224.aif: 51.2376438344763
diff.pl 192.aif 256.aif: 47.8957138738032
diff.pl 192.aif 320.aif: 45.8342146957145

diff.pl 224.aif 256.aif: 31.0226003311426
diff.pl 224.aif 320.aif: 27.7474785307258

diff.pl 256.aif 320.aif: 20.2551729878036




First, observe the large score between original.aif and re-encoded files.
Second, observe the low score between all combinations of re-encoded bitrates.
It can be concluded that the difference between bitrates is quite negligible
in contrast to the quality loss from the original.
This is as predicted as a result of the nature of MP3 encoding.
Corollary to this, we can conclude that re-encoding is highly lossfull, which
is concurrent with the common observations made by ear.

In short: 320kbps is overkill, man!


Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by gendou on 2005-04-05 02:13:06
for those who are interested, here is the diff.pl code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$| = 1;
open($FILE_A, "< $_") if($_ = shift);
open($FILE_B, "< $_") if($_ = shift);
while(!$FILE_A)
{
    print "file A: ";
    chomp($_ = <>);
    open($FILE_A, "< $_");
}
while(!$FILE_B)
{
    print "file B: ";
    chomp($_ = <>);
    open($FILE_B, "< $_");
}
while(!eof($FILE_A) && !eof($FILE_B))
{
    $short_a = unpack("s*", getc($FILE_A) . getc($FILE_A));
    $short_b = unpack("s*", getc($FILE_B) . getc($FILE_B));
    if($short_a > $short_b)
    {
        $diff = $short_a - $short_b;
        $sign = "+";
    }
    if($short_a < $short_b)
    {
        $diff = $short_b - $short_a;
        $sign = "-";
    }
    if($short_a == $short_b)
    {
        $diff = 0;
        $sign = " ";
    }
    $sum += abs($diff);
    $count += 2;
    printf("%10dk\r", $count / 1024) if($count % 1024 == 0);
#    print "\n$sum\n" if($count % 10240 == 0);
}
print "Average difference: " . ($sum / $count) . "\n";



Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by TIE_Defender2nd on 2006-07-27 16:39:06
is there a program that can convert 320 kbp mp3 file into 192 kbp? because most of my music files are 320 and you prefer 192 for this site, and also I was just gonna do it myself for the sake of your convenience :) i already typed "mp3 bit rate converter" into yahoo and found no decent program - they are all pay-or-get-nothing downloads >:(


Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by night_link on 2006-08-01 13:29:46
Sorry, I'm not too good with the technical terms. What does the overkill mean?

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by gendou on 2006-08-01 23:42:56 (edited 2006-08-01 23:43:35)
Definition of Overkill
More Funny Definition of Overkill


Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by paranoidsponge on 2006-08-03 08:08:20
>is there a program that can convert 320 kbp mp3 file into 192 kbp? because most of my music files are 320 and you prefer 192 for this site, and also I was just gonna do it myself for the sake of your convenience :) i already typed "mp3 bit rate converter" into yahoo and found no decent program - they are all pay-or-get-nothing downloads >:(

Try Exact Audio Copy. You'll need to grab a copy of the Lame encoder. Convert the mp3 to wav and then compress it to 192kbps. Bit of a hassle, but heck it's free =)

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by karuzo on 2006-08-03 08:17:56
convert it

-->

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Photobucket on 2006-08-05 22:17:19 (edited 2006-08-05 22:18:58)
To convert into different bitrate, I just simply grab an audio converter and re-encode the mp3 file to different bitrate, isn't this will do and simple enough huh... I'm always doing this XD

Photobucket

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by on 2006-08-06 09:06:03
I really don't know why people insist on having anything higher than 192 kpbs. :/ 320 is overkill and is not good for a lot of music! I'll take VBR over 320 CBR any day! Eh, that said, why the do people decide to encode in 320kpbs anyway?


Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Black Rock Shooter! on 2006-08-06 09:44:03
not sure why they prefer 320kbps but i heard that it provides a much better sound qualities...but i do find 320kbps a bit too much...but,i prefer 128kbps



Find me at Twitter and Google+

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Photobucket on 2006-08-06 19:57:47 (edited 2006-08-06 22:54:16)
I do noticed those music files in 320kbps are lounder..O.o Just 320kbps takes up tooo much hard disc space...
the pc I'm using is going to burst with that-__-lll
I have come across with ppl said that, when the person want to download a music file, that fellow asks "Is that 128?, I won't download anything that's 128 even if it costs me my life. 128 mp3 is just wrong and shouldn't be contended with. It should be tossed out!"

well, whatever~

Photobucket

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by yorokonde on 2006-08-25 22:44:18
I think the use of 320 Kbps is for short lenghted musics. Like Anime OSTs that are BGM's. But I recommend to use VBR encoding.


Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Black Rock Shooter! on 2007-01-20 02:59:16
i'm a little curious about bitrates...

what exactly is the difference between 128, 192, 320 and vbr bitrates?

ps:there's other types of bitrates like 160, 96, etc etc, but i'm just listing the famous ones



Find me at Twitter and Google+

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by h4xordude on 2007-01-30 17:35:14
@bloodymoon: the difference between all of those numbers is the amount of data used per second for audio information. For example, 128kbps is 128 kilobits of data per second of audio.

I find 160kpbs is optimal usually for those of us with limited space on our mp3 players (those of us not paying $300 for an ipod), and on my computer the bitrate I find that I can't tell any real difference in quality anymore is usually either 192 and 256, though I've got no problem with any higher if I've got the space.

The optimal bitrate varies between songs depending upon how "busy" the song is, or in other words how many things are going on at once, like if you've got a full band, 3 singers, and someone dropping a pencil on stage. With a higher bitrate you'll be able to make out subtler sounds better.

Beware the quiet people, You don't know their intentions
(small signatures are sooo much cooler since they don't annoy people trying to read through posts!)

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Black Rock Shooter! on 2007-01-31 03:21:28
ok...that explains things a little...but what about the sample rate? how does it effect an mp3? like a 320bitrate mp3 with...hmm....20kHz(just punched in a random number) of audio sample rate?



Find me at Twitter and Google+

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by h4xordude on 2007-02-01 19:53:18
Ahhhh, I get what you're saying. Sample rate is a very hard thing to describe.....where should I start.....

The technical definition is: sampling rate defines the number of samples per second (or per other unit) taken from a continuous signal to make a discrete signal.

In english, basically that means the number of times it takes a chunk of data and renders it through the speakers to make individual sounds, so whereas 22khz has (I think) 22 thousand different segments of sound per second, 44khz would have 44 thousand unique segments of rendered sound per second.

Where bitrate is the sound data itself and comprises what the sounds are, the sampling rate basically says how quickly to spit chunks of sound out through the speaker.

Hopefully that makes some more sense, and if anyone thinks I'm off please correct me cause my knowledge on it is kinda limited. (I usually focus on bitrate data and formats, etc.)

Beware the quiet people, You don't know their intentions
(small signatures are sooo much cooler since they don't annoy people trying to read through posts!)

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Black Rock Shooter! on 2007-02-02 02:14:19
interesting...cause when i compared a 128kbps bitrate audio with a 320kbps bitrate audio, they sounded exactly the same, with no difference (both with 44kHz sample rate),since i noticed others prefer using 320kbps birate cause it's much more 'clearer'. but i find that 320kbps is like a waste of space since 128kbps and 192kbps bitrates sounded just like 320kbps (i find out that anything lower than 128kbps gives off crappy sounds, unless it has a 44kHz sample rate)



Find me at Twitter and Google+

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by h4xordude on 2007-02-05 13:31:54 (edited 2007-02-05 13:34:31)
@bloodymoon: the difference between 320 and 192 isn't much normally, I agree, but the difference between 128 and 192 is huge if you really listen in. If you are just listening through unpowered computer speakers you may not hear a difference, heck, even if they are powered you may still not.

But if you really want to hear the difference, try comparing the two on headphones ;D

It makes all the difference in the world then.....
(if you're trying to hear a difference, listen closely to "s" sounds. I've noticed many times on 128k songs they'll sound more obviously synthesized than on higher bitrates)

Of course, it is entirely possible that you might not hear a difference between the two depending on what you listen to. Songs with less instruments or vocals,etc., won't need as high a bitrate for everything to come out as clear as say a europop dance mix.

Beware the quiet people, You don't know their intentions
(small signatures are sooo much cooler since they don't annoy people trying to read through posts!)

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by on 2007-02-05 13:36:13 (edited 2007-02-05 13:39:35)
@h4xor- I agree with you on that.

I don't think it's overkill. I consider very few things overkill. If I can use it with no major problems and it makes a difference then I'll go with it.

PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

Re: Study: Is 320 bitrate overkill?
Link | by Darkboy on 2007-02-07 16:39:51 (edited 2007-02-07 16:44:32)
Don't really understand what was posted above by Gendou... :P... But I agree that 320kbps CBR is OVERKILL... 'cuz:

1. It takes too much space.
2. 320kbps VBR/the highest VBR quality is almost the same with a 320kbps CBR.
3. As long as it sounds good and you have DFX Audio Enhancer, then 128kbps is ok...

Well if you don't have problems with space in your computer, and you own a REALLY BIG and EXPENSIVE SOUND/ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM(No offense to the 320kbps CBR users...) then 320kpbs CBR is ok for you...

All in all it depends upon the preference of the END USER... :D

Oh yeah the great
1337 |30'/!!!

Back | Reverse | Quick Reply | Post Reply |
Go to page: 0, 1 Displaying 1 to 20 of 21 Entries.

Copyright 2000-2025 Gendou | Terms of Use | Page loaded in 0.0029 seconds at 2025-09-22 21:56:53