What is an appropriate Bit Rate for Exact Audio Copy?

[surv1v0r]

When ripping a CD to MP3 in Exact Audio Copy, under the EAC & Compression Options tab you are able to select a required Bit Rate.

This can range from 96 kBit/sec to 320 kBit/sec or Variable 96 kBit/sec to Variable 192 kBit/sec. Can anyone explain what is the optimum to choose and why please? I imagine that 96 kBit/sec is too low and 320 kBit/sec is way over the top.

I do realise that neither CDs or MP3 format are not exactly Audiophile quality. However, FLAC doesn't appear to be widely supported and you can get a shedload of music onto a USB memory stick to carry around in the car.

[skimminstones]

What makes you say FLAC isnt widely supported?

Personally it depends where im going to be listening to the music. If its on my mp3 player or in the car i tend to rip to 320 but if at home it will be FLAC

[surv1v0r]

My car radio Mobile Device Interface can playback MP3s from a USB memory stick but not FLACs. I believe that this is also true of most low end PVRs and BluRay players and mobile 'phones?

As it happens, the "MP3" player that I use (Sansa Fuze) does support FLACs and that is what I have stored on it.

I may be entirely missing the point and I don't know how to do the relevant calculations but isn't 320 kBit/sec excessive for encoding a frequency range that will top out at 22 kHz anyhow?

[skimminstones]

so do it at 192 and save the space

[struth]

I copy everything to a lossless format...flac being my preferred one ... If i want to play a file on a non flac machine which there aint many now, then i can run off a copy at , whatever i need or want and still have the original. 320 is way better than 192 on music i listen to, although on some styles of music or poorer recordings, it may not matter so much. Depends on what your listening it through as well

[Ali Tait]

If you have the space, use the highest bit rates for best sound quality.

[surv1v0r]

I have found some interesting observations:

Using a bit rate of 128 Kbps usually results in a sound quality equivalent to what you'd hear on the radio. Many music sites and blogs urge people to use a bit rate of 160 Kbps or higher if they want the MP3 file to have the same sound quality as a CD. (LINK (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/mp32.htm))and


The absolute lowest MP3 bit rate you should consider is 128kbps. This was often referred to as being CD quality, but it's far from being so. This bit rate will allow you to get much more music on to your MP3 player but you'll sacrifice a great deal of audio quality as a result. If you use the headphones that came with your player and don't listen to that much music, 128kbps will probably suffice for you.

The happy medium between small file sizes and true CD quality audio is a 256kbps bit rate. This offers vastly superior sound quality over 128kbps, without eating up too much disk space. The difference in quality between 128kbps and 256kbps is vast and immediately obvious -- your favourite tunes encoded at 256kbps will sound stunning in comparison to the same tracks encoded at 128kbps.
...
One final consideration should be to encode MP3s using a 'variable bit rate' instead of a 'constant bit rate'. Using VBR allows the MP3 encoder to use lower bit rates during quieter or less complex parts of a song, and significantly higher bit rates during more complex sections. This allows you to have a file of greater quality but without pushing file sizes up too much. (LINK (http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/which-mp3-bit-rate-should-i-use/))I suspect that when they talk about "Radio quality" they are not talking about Radio 3 on FM!

I guess that the obvious / significant difference between high and low bit rates is going to be in terms of dynamic range?

[Macca]

I think Radio 3 is usually 256

For CD quality you want 320 non-variable.

[WAD62]

Treat yourself to dbPoweramp, rip your CDs in FLAC to a HD, then batch convert them to mp3/vbr on a USB stick...

VBR 192 mp3 is a good compromise for quality and size

Ripping is something you don't want to repeat, so don't miss out the FLAC stage...:)

[Yomanze]

320kbps or 256kbps for portable audio, and lossless for HiFi. Any decent system will benefit from that last touch of refinement and 'air' in the top end that lossless gives, but no way can I notice it on my phone or in-car...

When I did listening tests differences became more apparent at 192 and below, so IME staying at 256 and above does make the files very close to lossless.

[WAD62]

320kbps or 256kbps for portable audio, and lossless for HiFi. Any decent system will benefit from that last touch of refinement and 'air' in the top end that lossless gives, but no way can I notice it on my phone or in-car...

When I did listening tests differences became more apparent at 192 and below, so IME staying at 256 and above does make the files very close to lossless.

The 'Lame' encoder in dbpoweramp advises VBR...which will utilise 320 for complex passages, a lesser rate for less complex. The 'quoted' VBR of 190 is just an estimate...

https://www.dbpoweramp.com/Help/dMC/mp3lame.html

...as you say it's perfectly good for my car, whilst I use the original FLAC versions in my Hi-Fi, and phone...:)

[StanleyB]

I have tried MP3 in the car, but my bass units just did not perform anywhere as good as when I play WAV or FLAC. So my suggestion would be to record a range of audio files in several formats, and then play each format to see which one is a reasonably good trade off between quality and size.

[Yomanze]

The 'Lame' encoder in dbpoweramp advises VBR...which will utilise 320 for complex passages, a lesser rate for less complex. The 'quoted' VBR of 190 is just an estimate...

https://www.dbpoweramp.com/Help/dMC/mp3lame.html

...as you say it's perfectly good for my car, whilst I use the original FLAC versions in my Hi-Fi, and phone...:)
Yes big fan of LAME too, VBR does work. To clarify I mean 192kbps constant bit rate isn't good enough.

Stan those bass issues are also felt by many a DJ, playing lower bitrate mp3s and then feeling the bass come back with vinyl.

[surv1v0r]

I have just done some testing based on ripping Nigel Kennedy's 1989 performance of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons with the English Chamber Orchestra. Results are as follows:
Variable 192 - 58,257,408 bytes (reduced by about 1% from the 192 .MP3)
192 - 58,920,960 bytes
256 - 78,475,264 bytes (about 33% larger than the 192 .MP3)
320 - 98,021,376 bytes (about 66% larger than the 192 .MP3)
FLAC - 189,210,624 bytes (about 220% larger than the 192 .MP3)
WAV - 431,013,888 bytes (about 630% larger than the 192 .MP3)

The upshot of this is that I will almost certainly stick to 320 kBit/s, simply because my car memory stick player can't handle FLAC and even if it could, I am not certain that I would notice the difference.

I will have a go at ripping Musica Nuda to see if very low bass notes change any compression ratios.

Incidentally, other than that you can batch convert from .FLAC to .MP3, in what way is £41 dBpoweramp superior to free EAC?

[Yomanze]

If you are good using EAC then no paid software offers better results. Paid might be easier to use though, some extra features, and a bit faster in ripping.

[Yomanze]

Personally if you want to go paid then JRiver offers it all. Not just for processing files, but a full media centre too.

[surv1v0r]

The 'Lame' encoder in dbpoweramp advises VBR...which will utilise 320 for complex passages, a lesser rate for less complex. The 'quoted' VBR of 190 is just an estimate...

https://www.dbpoweramp.com/Help/dMC/mp3lame.html

...as you say it's perfectly good for my car, whilst I use the original FLAC versions in my Hi-Fi, and phone...:)All of my CDs are saved in FLAC format on a HDD with a structure consisting of Artist name (or "various") as folders and album names as sub-folders - e.g. Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band > Doc at the radar station, Safe as milk, Shiny beast, Spotlight kid, Trout mask replica.

dBpoweramp claims to be able to do a batch conversion from .FLAC to .MP3. Will this automatically work its way across and down multiple folders and sub-folders, where does it place the .MP3s and what does it do about Tags & Cover images?

[WAD62]

All of my CDs are saved in FLAC format on a HDD with a structure consisting of Artist name (or "various") as folders and album names as sub-folders - e.g. Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band > Doc at the radar station, Safe as milk, Shiny beast, Spotlight kid, Trout mask replica.

dBpoweramp claims to be able to do a batch conversion from .FLAC to .MP3. Will this automatically work its way across and down multiple folders and sub-folders, where does it place the .MP3s and what does it do about Tags & Cover images?

In short yes, that's the structure of my FLAC library too...

One can change the destination folder structure if you want, and also apply DSP (eg ReplayGain etc.) at conversion time.

It's also clever enough to check for overwrites, so you can do it in batches without having to note where you'd got to..;)

[surv1v0r]

Thanks for that, I'll give dBpoweramp a go then.

Next challenge is to convert hundreds of LPs to MP3s, splitting up the tracks. In the past I have used Audacity to migrate some LPs where there are no individual tracks but I believe that there are packages which can automatically distinguish the beginning and end of tracks (sometimes with manual assistance) and can also "clean up" the Snaps, Crackles and Pops without totally destroying the recording?

[WAD62]

Thanks for that, I'll give dBpoweramp a go then.

Next challenge is to convert hundreds of LPs to MP3s, splitting up the tracks. In the past I have used Audacity to migrate some LPs where there are no individual tracks but I believe that there are packages which can automatically distinguish the beginning and end of tracks (sometimes with manual assistance) and can also "clean up" the Snaps, Crackles and Pops without totally destroying the recording?

Hi Aaron, I had enough patience to rip 3k CDs to FLAC, however the time and patience required to rip my 1k Vinyl is beyond me...:)

I've only bothered with some of my more obscure 12", but for other stuff I've re-bought it on CD, via a mixture of new or second hand, it'll take you a couple of hours minimum per album...that's not a good hourly rate ;)

Anyway if you're going to go to the trouble you might as well rip to FLAC again, and convert to mp3 as necessary (given you'll have a copy of dBpoweramp's batch converter by then)...perhaps even 24/96, at the risk of starting a resolution war...:eyebrows:

[surv1v0r]

Hi Aaron, I had enough patience to rip 3k CDs to FLAC, however the time and patience required to rip my 1k Vinyl is beyond me...:)

I've only bothered with some of my more obscure 12", but for other stuff I've re-bought it on CD, via a mixture of new or second hand, it'll take you a couple of hours minimum per album...that's not a good hourly rate ;)

Anyway if you're going to go to the trouble you might as well rip to FLAC again, and convert to mp3 as necessary (given you'll have a copy of dBpoweramp's batch converter by then)...perhaps even 24/96, at the risk of starting a resolution war...:eyebrows:Like you, there is absolutely no way that I would ever contemplate ripping my entire album collection. Again, like you I have a number of albums on vinyl that will probably never appear on CD (e.g. Tibetan Bells by Henry Wolff & Nancy Hennings) and I would like to make these more "available".

I have found two products that may be worthy of consideration:
WavePad (http://www.nch.com.au/splitter/index.html) WaveCorrector (http://www.wavecor.co.uk/)I do realise that ripping vinyl does actually involve playing it from start to finish - I can cope with that ;)

[Stratmangler]

Like you, there is absolutely no way that I would ever contemplate ripping my entire album collection. Again, like you I have a number of albums on vinyl that will probably never appear on CD (e.g. Tibetan Bells by Henry Wolff & Nancy Hennings) and I would like to make these more "available".



https://www.discogs.com/Henry-Wolff-And-Nancy-Hennings-With-Drew-Gladstone-Tibetan-Bells/release/3668450

[Barry]

Also available through Amzon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Bells-Henry-Wolff-Hennings/dp/B00005845K, along with volumes II and III. :)

[Stratmangler]

Also available through Amzon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Bells-Henry-Wolff-Hennings/dp/B00005845K, along with volumes II and III. :)

I'm thinking of doing a follow up series on empty beer bottles and fluid containing wine glasses :)

[WAD62]

I do realise that ripping vinyl does actually involve playing it from start to finish - I can cope with that ;)

If you get the levels right first time that is...when digital recording goes into the 'red' it's unforgiving :doh:

Then there's editing, chopping the tracks, cleaning the waveform...

Do you have an RCM?

As Chris and Barry suggest it's more rewarding to track down the CDs IMHO...however one man's pain in the arse etc. :)

[WAD62]

Also available through Amzon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Bells-Henry-Wolff-Hennings/dp/B00005845K, along with volumes II and III. :)

I see vII met with a well balanced and measured review...

load of rubbish. don't buy

:doh:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Bells-II-Henry-Wolff/dp/B0000007VQ/ref=pd_sim_15_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51ZsBjPSMYL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR156%2C160_&refRID=1Q2AM2SPM674Z1VNG6R1

...the US reviews are a little more forgiving ;)

[surv1v0r]

[SNIP]
Do you have an RCM?
[SNIP]RCM?

I am trying to cut down on, not add to original source material.

[WAD62]

RCM?

I am trying to cut down on, not add to original source material.

Record Cleaning Machine...:)

[dave2010]

I've only bothered with some of my more obscure 12", but for other stuff I've re-bought it on CD, via a mixture of new or second hand, it'll take you a couple of hours minimum per album...that's not a good hourlThat's a good point, though I wonder if the time can be effectively reduced. Doing one LP at a time could easily take 2 hours for each LP - say 1 hour to play the LP, and another hour to faff around and tidy things up. That assumes that only one turntable is used. The throughput rate could be increased with more turntables. Also, with only one turntable, pipelining could be used, so that the "faffing" around to sort out the digital rip of the first LP could be done while a second LP is being ripped, and so on. Another approach would be simply to do the rip of each LP without significant checking, and then to do batch tidying up of the digital rips once a reasonable number have been stored in electronic digital forms.

If MP3s are to sound acceptable, then bit rates of 256k and/or above are desirable, and the encoding parameters should be set to high quality. Any kind of tingle factor will go if bit rates are low, and joint stereo settings should be avoided too. If space really is an issue, which surely is doubtful nowadays, then VBR is useful, otherwise 320 kbps CBR is probably the best option. Admittedly in some applications lower bit rate MP3s may be OKish - for example for playing back in a car or noisy environment, but the first rip should always be to the highest quality - and preferably lossless. It's usually easy enough to make copy versions at lower quality levels using lossy compression later, once the first rip has been done, if there is a need to do so.

A year or two back I ripped a lot of CDs thinking it would be a good thing to do for playing via streamers. I ripped to lossless formats - in my case mostly ALAC. I can see little point in ripping to MP3 first as that builds in inherent quality loss. Some ripping tools can do both a lossless rip and a lossy rip not quite in parallel. Eventually I was able to do rips with a turnaround time of about 3-5 mins per CD, and since I did this in parallel with other work it wasn't too difficult. As far as I could tell, my computer was able to do this while I worked, with no bad effects. Purists might be concerned that this would compromise things, but I didn't think it did. The processing load on my computer due to the rips was low, and other work was not particularly demanding either. Obviously there could be interference between other work and rips, but in my case it didn't seem significant.

Re ripping LPs, I think sometimes this might be worthwhile, though I don't normally bother if CDs are available. I have replaced many of my LPs with equivalant CDs. Again, I wouldn't rip to MP3 or a lossy format first, though for LP rips there may be relatively little benefit in using lossless formats. That's an area I have little experience of. If LPs sound as good as or perhaps even better than CDs on your equipment, then doing MP3 or a lossy format would almost certainly spoil the sound, but if LPs sound "merely" OK - then the perceived quality loss might be rather small - as most MP3s sound "merely" OK - though sometimes rather worse than that. That's an area for experimentation. LP rips could be a lot harder than CD rips. It might be hard to eliminate turntable rumble, and other noise such as mains hum. I have often been surprised that when I listen to other people's rips from LPs I can hear low frequency noise easily, which they seem unaware of, though some people do make very good rips. Some noise can be removed or reduced after ripping, but it's a lot better to make sure that rips are made with as little noise as possible in the first place. Filtering noise after the event sometimes works very well, but sometimes it definitely compromises the final quality significantly or may take several attempts to get a satisfactory compromise.

Some LPs might definitely be worth trying to rip, even if there are equivalent CDs available, as sometimes the commercial CDs are poor, or made from master tapes which have deteriorated over time, and the LP versions may provide the best option. However, any attempt to rip LPs is likely to be time consuming. For a small number it could be worthwhile, but for hundreds or thousands probably too much of a gargantuan task.

One approach which might work in a community such as this is to share rips of LPs which are of interest. The idea would be that each member with an interest in ripping specific LPs would do so on his (or her) kit to the highest possible standards, and then distribute the end results. This would reduce the work load for each interested member, and a centralised list of ripped LPs could be kept, and perhaps also a wish list of LPs to be ripped. This might still violate copyright law though - I'm not commenting further. Also, ripping copyrighted CDs has now been declared illegal again in the UK - after it had been made explicitly legal. A somewhat bonkers state of affairs, but there it is.

[Stratmangler]

When ripping a CD to MP3 in Exact Audio Copy, under the EAC & Compression Options tab you are able to select a required Bit Rate

I would never rip a CD to MP3.
I might convert the ripped files to MP3 at some later stage for use on other devices, but I do not see the sense it ripping directly to a lossy format.

[Gazjam]

Chris,
speaking of file formats you get my PM? :)

[Stratmangler]

Chris,
speaking of file formats you get my PM? :)

I did Gaz.
I have been snowed under with work lately, which explains why I haven't been particularly active on this or any other forum.
I'll give you a bell later :)

[Macca]

The idea would be that each member with an interest in ripping specific LPs would do so on his (or her) kit to the highest possible standards, and then distribute the end results. This would reduce the work load for each interested member, and a centralised list of ripped LPs could be kept, and perhaps also a wish list of LPs to be ripped. This might still violate copyright law though.

Yes, it would indeed violate copyright law. In fact the current state of play is that you may not copy anything, whether you intend to distribute or not. Even making a copy for the car is illegal. Ripping your LPs and CDs is illegal whether you keep the original or not.

Of course if you do actually do this no-one will bother you in the same way they do not bother London cabbies who neglect to keep a bale of hay in the boot for their horse. But start file sharing on an open forum like this and they might get a bit more interested.

[struth]

^^^^ what he said... Technically changing any musics format is illegal without a licence. A nonsense I know but such are many laws. Doubt anyone doing it for their own use would get prosecuted but you could be

[surv1v0r]

I see that one of the claimed benefits of using dBpoweramp is that it "encodes using all CPU cores simultaneously" - so far as I can tell, ExactAudioCopy (EAC) does exactly the same.

Having said that, the latest version of EAC has resulted in a warning from my Anti-Virus software.

[The Black Adder]

EAC has done a great job with my collection so far. Didn't know there was a new version, will have to check it out.. so long as it's not infected... Eeew!

[Yomanze]

I would never rip a CD to MP3.
I might convert the ripped files to MP3 at some later stage for use on other devices, but I do not see the sense it ripping directly to a lossy format.
I rip to 320kbps mp3, but only since I started lossless streaming and ditching maintenance of ripping my CDs. The ripping is for my portable media, as phones are rubbish for audio and old school mp3 players are better.

[Yomanze]

I see that one of the claimed benefits of using dBpoweramp is that it "encodes using all CPU cores simultaneously" - so far as I can tell, ExactAudioCopy (EAC) does exactly the same.

Having said that, the latest version of EAC has resulted in a warning from my Anti-Virus software.
It'd be more surprising for software not to use simultaneous processing with the cores available. Bet there are a few very old school programs that process single thread, hence the marketing spiel.

[Stratmangler]

I do realise that ripping vinyl does actually involve playing it from start to finish - I can cope with that ;)

We all had to play it from end to end when we ripped it to cassette tape, so nothing has changed in that respect.