KevinG Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 After reading several articles on the new Radiohead album, there has been a lot of comments on the bit rate of the download. After listening to the album several times, I have not noticed any difference from albums that I have ripped from CD's, or listened to via the actual CD. I should note, that I am not an audiofile, I have average speakers and use the headphones that came with my iPod. So the question I have for all of you, is does the bit rate really matter, and how many of you are concerned with the bit rate of audio tracks? Also are any of you upset at Radiohead for "selling" a low quality bit rate album? Just wondering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yes. And in the name of SkyGod, get a better set of headphones!Serious, 128 kbps is about as low as I can go. I rip at 192 (AAC), and that sounds fine to me, but many prefer a higher rate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhh4321 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 the new radiohead came in 160sounds pretty good to me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TCP Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 160 kbps, isn't great but you have to think about where you're listening to it. If you're downloading music for your ipod to listen to in your car or on the bus or whatever, then it's fine, cause you're already in a bad listening environment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Bit rate matters to me, which is why I didn't end up paying for the Radiohead disc, yet (I will buy the CD when it's released.) To me, the difference between compressed sound (MP3's), and full CD/LP sound is akin to the difference between a real painting vs. a print: both may look similar, but when you look closer, one has depth and texture, the other is flat. It's the same thing with the music. The MP3 is an okay facsimile, but it ain't the real thing. Unfortunately, I think the number of people that care about such things has greatly diminished with the advent of MP3 players. I just hope that the success of this Radiohead experiment doesn't lead to other artists abandoning full fidelity sound in favor of inferior sonics, that would be a shame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Bit rate does matter substantially, just compare 64kbps with 128kbps and you'll see a huge difference. The farther you go up the less "noticeable" the difference will be. On standard systems and headphones most listeners probably won't notice any substantial differences in audio quality with anything at about 128kbps or above, but there are significant pieces of the music missing. I rip at 192kbps which for most purposes sounds fine to me, however, it is noticeable when I am listening to actual albums in higher fidelity settings that there is a fuller, more complete sound. That said, obviously smaller mp3's are more convenient, so often more practical for daily usage. The differences in audio quality would be particularly noticeable if you were doing audio editing, as there are literally pieces of the sound missing because of the sampling formulas, but just listening this is much less obvious. I don't imagine hi-fi will go away, but I certainly think that there's more of a move for convenience over fidelity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marijn Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 It doesn't matter that much to me, but I ended up paying only 1 pound for the new Radiohead album because of the low bitrate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 That's one pound more than I paid for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marijn Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 And you downloaded it from their official website? No offense amigo, but that's kinda lame.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 After reading several articles on the new Radiohead album, there has been a lot of comments on the bit rate of the download. After listening to the album several times, I have not noticed any difference from albums that I have ripped from CD's, or listened to via the actual CD. I should note, that I am not an audiofile, I have average speakers and use the headphones that came with my iPod. So the question I have for all of you, is does the bit rate really matter, and how many of you are concerned with the bit rate of audio tracks? Also are any of you upset at Radiohead for "selling" a low quality bit rate album? Just wondering. Get some record albums and a big ass stereo - and then report back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rileykill Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Get some record albums and a big ass stereo - and then report back. Amen. I use my ipod like everyone else but it sure is nice to dig into a big stack of vinyl played through horn-loaded speakers from time to time Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I do much of my listening through a great set of headphones, so bitrate matters to me. I'm not as snobbish as some, but I like MP3s to be in the 256 kbps range when possible (variable bitrate or constant bitrate, I don't really care). I rip my own files in .OGG format, variable bitrate, averaging somewhere in the 200s. 128 and 160 kbps MP3s just don't sound good to me -- I can hear the compression on most tracks. Files at 192 kbps can be fine, though I tend to avoid them unless there's no other option. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Bit rate matters to me, which is why I didn't end up paying for the Radiohead disc, yet (I will buy the CD when it's released.) Exact same for me. I downloaded it for free because I would never pay for mp3s of any bitrate, but I plan to buy the cd and vinyl when released. 160 bitrate is a bit low, but they asked people to put their own price so its totally fair. I would normally rip in 256 bitrate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 when you take into account that soundwaves have the potential to make you feel a whole number of bodily experiences (eg. make you feel disorientated, loss of balance, that sort of thing) then i think it does matter a lot that mp3's actually remove frequencies that the human ear cannot distinguish properly from a song just to make the file size smaller. the fact that you can't hear them doesn't mean that they are not having an effect on your body, and therefore the experience is different. it's a bit like (and i think i've said this before), i have a friend who i record music with a lot and he reguarly argues with me that he can't hear certain melodies and instruments i put in the mix of a song because they are not seperated enough. and my answer to him is always that he can hear them, it's just that he can't seperate them out in his brain - they are there producing 'a whole', even if he can't hear it as such. the same thing goes for cutting frequencies on a recording to make it mp3 - something is being lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I don't pay attention much to bit rate - but this Radiohead album sounds beautiful fine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chendizzle Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Exact same for me. I downloaded it for free because I would never pay for mp3s of any bitrate, but I plan to buy the cd and vinyl when released. 160 bitrate is a bit low, but they asked people to put their own price so its totally fair. I would normally rip in 256 bitrate. I did the opposite, gave them $10 now so that I wouldn't feel guilty about just Oinking the CD later Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 when you take into account that soundwaves have the potential to make you feel a whole number of bodily experiences (eg. make you feel disorientated, loss of balance, that sort of thing) then i think it does matter a lot that mp3's actually remove frequencies that the human ear cannot distinguish properly from a song just to make the file size smaller. the fact that you can't hear them doesn't mean that they are not having an effect on your body, and therefore the experience is different. it's a bit like (and i think i've said this before), i have a friend who i record music with a lot and he reguarly argues with me that he can't hear certain melodies and instruments i put in the mix of a song because they are not seperated enough. and my answer to him is always that he can hear them, it's just that he can't seperate them out in his brain - they are there producing 'a whole', even if he can't hear it as such. the same thing goes for cutting frequencies on a recording to make it mp3 - something is being lost. That is a mother's pearly gate answer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 That is a mother's pearly gate answer. are you speaking cockney again? i'm lost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 are you speaking cockney again? i'm lost I used a translator to get that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 The thing to keep in mind is not only bit rate but file type. You get a higher quality out of an AAC (the standard i tunes format) than a normal mp3 with the same bitrate. For example (this is a guesstimate) say 128 AAC sounds the same as 160 mp3 or better. That's because an AAC is really an mp4 which manages the data more efficiently to get higher audio resolution at a lower bit rate, whoop, dropped my pocket protector. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yeah, OGGs are a bit better than MP3s too. The problem is finding a decent player that will play them. Back when I chose OGG as my format, a friend who (usually) knows about such things insisted that OGG would be the format of the future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I can't understand why people get so bent out of shape about bit rates, etc. Just listen to the damn songs. Just as I'll never understand why tapers don't like their shows in MP3 format. What does it matter?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 The thing to keep in mind is not only bit rate but file type. You get a higher quality out of an AAC (the standard i tunes format) than a normal mp3 with the same bitrate. For example (this is a guesstimate) say 128 AAC sounds the same as 160 mp3 or better. That's because an AAC is really an mp4 which manages the data more efficiently to get higher audio resolution at a lower bit rate, whoop, dropped my pocket protector. Why would anyone use an AAC or MP4? I think those are apple specific. MP3s are universal and can be shared easily cause of it. Down with everything else that is chopping music. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I can't understand why people get so bent out of shape about bit rates, etc. Just listen to the damn songs. Just as I'll never understand why tapers don't like their shows in MP3 format. What does it matter?! if you feel like reading through this thread Also - dig around and see the difference between lossy and lossless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I can't understand why people get so bent out of shape about bit rates, etc. Just listen to the damn songs. Just as I'll never understand why tapers don't like their shows in MP3 format. What does it matter?! Cause we care about quality of the sound. I guess you dont. Until you do, you wont understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.