# What's the best bitrate for encoding music?



## JohnJSal

I've traditionally gone with 128kbps, probably because that was the standard years ago and I've never really given it much though since then. But now that iTunes and Amazon have everything in 256kbps, I'm wondering if the accepted norm has gone to at least this much.

I know 192kbps used to be pretty much the high end, but now I know it can go to 320. I'm not crazy about the increase in file size with these higher bitrates, but is the audio quality different enough to justify it? Is 192 still good, or should I go higher for best sound quality to file size?

Thanks.


----------



## gamerman4

depends on how anal-retentive you are, audiophiles use lossless filetypes like FLAC while some choose 320kbps mp3. Just encode a high quality file to 128kbps, 192kbps, and 320kbps. I can barely distinguish between 192 and 320kbps but for me there is definitely a difference between 128 and 192. Now you won't get any extra quality if your file is already 128 so don't go converting everything up to 192kbps or anything but yeah, 192kbps is probably the best file size/quality ratio nowadays thanks to the much bigger hdd sizes we have now, of course if you wan to make sure you don't lose any quality, 256kbps would work and you would have to be seriously delusional if you think you can hear a diff between 256 and 320.


----------



## oregon

JohnJSal said:


> I've traditionally gone with 128kbps, probably because that was the standard years ago and I've never really given it much though since then. But now that iTunes and Amazon have everything in 256kbps, I'm wondering if the accepted norm has gone to at least this much.
> 
> I know 192kbps used to be pretty much the high end, but now I know it can go to 320. I'm not crazy about the increase in file size with these higher bitrates, but is the audio quality different enough to justify it? Is 192 still good, or should I go higher for best sound quality to file size?
> 
> Thanks.



mp3 files have always encoded up to 320. 

i encode based upon my device. back when i had a 4GB sansa, i would go 128 or even 112. now that i have a 32GB ipod, i always go at least 192. i'm pretty sure i do notice a difference, but i have never tested myself.


----------



## wiwazevedo

i know that dj's wont use under 320 because you can sometimes you can get beat lag or something


----------



## bm23

im not very particular about the bitrate of audio file but i do try to have 192kbps and above when possible


----------



## Seth

Being a DJ and a self confessed audiophile I generally get my music on a variable bit rate of 192-320. I only use a pure 320 bit rate when I love the song as it takes forever to rip a song at 320 . Unless you have really good speakers on a good sound card you cant really notice a difference between 190 and 320. But 128 is a big no-no in my collection


----------



## JohnJSal

Thanks guys. I've decided to go with 192 AAC (apparently better than mp3?).


----------



## tlarkin

the best of course is lossless


----------



## JohnJSal

tlarkin said:


> the best of course is lossless



Heh, naturally! But I'd prefer not to waste all that space if I can't barely hear a difference!


----------



## tlarkin

well with FLAC, MP4, and OGG, you can rip a whole CD in lossless for about 500 megs to 600 megs.  Considering 1 TB drives are out and not that expensive it may almost be worth it,

Then again some music doesn't need lossless because it never goes over certain pitches and tones.


----------



## JohnJSal

tlarkin said:


> Considering 1 TB drives are out and not that expensive it may almost be worth it



It's not the PC hard drive as much as the iPod.


----------

