What Bit Rate?

[RobbieD 0]

Hard disc space is getting cheaper and cheaper. Already you can buy 250GB external hard discs for

 

A 250GB hard disc can store around 7,000 WAV format tracks to hard disc in the original CD sound quality. Is is now only 1p in hard disc space per track, or around 20p in hard disc space per CD!

 

However the lack of tags means that searching by Artist, Title, Year, or BPM is not very easy.

 

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codac) retains the full original waveform with no loss in quality - ie. the exact same sound as the original CD, and has the advantage over WAV of having mp3 style tags (ie Artist, Title, Album, Year, Genre, Comments, etc.) which makes it much easier to search by any tag or combination of tags. (ie Elvis songs between 1960 & 1963 containing the word Love.)

 

A 250GB hard disc can store around 11,000 tracks as FLAC files. That works out as less than 0.7p in disc space per track and about 12p in disc space for a full CD (such as a Now album - artists albums will take up less space). - This is about the same cost per CD as buying a Slappa CD case!

 

Ripping to FLAC (or WAV) will ensure that you never have to re-rip any of the CD's at a higher bit rate at a latter date. - And you can always use a program to automatically produce mp3 files from your ripped WAV or FLAC files if you need mp3 files for a portable player, or smaller hard disc.

 

MP3 uses lossy compression (ie throws away sounds that are hard to hear) to give greatly reduced file sizes. This was essential back in the days when hard discs were small and expensive.

 

320kbs is the highest (standard) bit rate for mp3 and offers sound quality that is hard to tell from original CD on anything but a good quality sound system.

 

At current hard disc prices ripping at 320Kbs only costs 4p a CD for the disc space, but there is the risk that at a latter date you may wish you had ripped to a higher quality lossless format. - Well you can always rip those discs again, but do you really want to have to do that?

 

So you could say that compared with FLAC, 320Kbs mp3 saves you 8p a CD in disc space, but may cost you your time to re-rip the CD's at a higher bit rate at a later date.

 

Ripping at 192Kbs will save you one and a half pence per CD in disc space compared with 320Kbs and offers a reasonable sound quality. On an average disco set up it would be hard to tell from the original CD, but what happens when you upgrade your equipment one day? Then your bit rate may become the limiting factor to your overall sound quality. You will be much more likely to want to re-rip the CD's at a higher bit rate.

 

128kbs is considered by many to be the minimum bit rate to use for listening to music through cheap headphones on portable players. It was also a reasonable choice for disco use when hard discs were small and expensive, but everyone that I personally know that ripped at 128kbs is now going to, or already has, re-ripped at a higher rate.

 

Personally I would rather avoid ever having to re-rip any CD again. It is a time consuming and boring process. Is the risk of having to re-rip worth saving a few pence per CD in disc space?

 

Given all the above, what would be your choice to rip at in future? (Even if it's after you purchase that new hard disc?) Even if you are not a PC DJ, but considering some of the new hardware players coming out, what bit rate would you use?

 

If you use a non-mp3 format (like OTS) please select the nearest mp3 bit rate in the poll.

 

Any other thoughts or comments on bit rates are welcome!

[BigBen 0]

You've put together a nice little report there Robbie. As for the poll, I can't answer as I would like to rip to WAV and convert to FLAC at the same time. Then use one of these formats to convert to whatever is required - be it MP3 or Ots.

 

Naturally, you will need to double up on disk space to back-up everything you have ripped as well.

 

Gary always mentions the extra processing required for playing higher bit rate MP3s too - ie a 256kbps MP3 pushes twice as much data as a 128kbps MP3 track would. This means the processor will heat up and your lappie could become more vulnerable to heat problems.

[FDDJ 0]

None of the above, I rip using Alt Standard Preset (well a setting given to me to use in EAC anyway), which is VBR with a floor or 128 Kbps and ceiling of 320 Kbps.

 

 

[RobbieD 0]

I can't answer as I would like to rip to WAV and convert to FLAC at the same time. Then use one of these formats to convert to whatever is required - be it MP3 or Ots.

I started ripping as WAV, until I discovered FLAC.

 

At first I duplicated many files in both WAV & FLAC, but after some trials of converting FLAC back to WAV, back to FLAC, back to WAV, many times, found that there was no change in the file at all. So I've been confident enough to delete my original WAV files.

 

If I want the WAV files back I can always decode the FLAC files again (which only take a few 10's of seconds even on my old PC).

 

 

None of the above, I rip using Alt Standard Preset (well a setting given to me to use in EAC anyway), which is VBR with a floor or 128 Kbps and ceiling of 320 Kbps.

Hi Steve,

 

Can I suggest you (and any other VBR users) vote the nearest rate average rate in the poll - I guess that's 224Kbs for you.

[Danno13 0]

I've voted WAV, but..

 

I still rip most of the new cds i buy at 320k MP3. However, i'm slowly getting round to ripping my most played tracks (worked out from PCDJs log files) into WAV for the better quality.

 

I would like to use FLAC, but i don't think PCDJ supports it, i generally don't make use of any other tags except for Artist and Title though so not too big an issue.

[brianmole 0]

who said 128? ;thumbdown:

[shakermaker 0]

I rip everything at 320kps, I use MYMP3PRO and it sounds really good. I have 2 seperate hard drives and as I have mentioned in the past, I am slowly working my way through the collection and am up to 54gig so far.

[Andy Westcott 0]

I voted WAV, as it is a no-compromise format for Windows based platforms.

 

And with cheap, large hard drives available, I see little point in doing otherwise.

[BigBen 0]

The big problem with WAV is the lack of TAG info. You can get around this, to some degree, with an intelligent folder and file naming convention, however.

 

FLAC is a modern way of storing the data without compression so it results in a top quality file but with a smaller file size.

 

AIFF is effectively a WAV file with the TAG data wrapped around it but it is a similar size to the original WAV file.

 

The problem with both FLAC and AIFF is the lack of hardware support. Both OtsDJ and PCDJ only support WAV and MP3 file formats (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

So, WAV and MP3 are almost universally acceptable to most hardware platforms. WAV is an uncompressed high quality format that gives huge file sizes, MP3 is compressed to varying qualities producing much smaller file sizes.

 

Until FLAC becomes a hardware standard, or WAV's begin to contain TAG data, or MP3's quality doubles it's current maximum with no increase in file size...then we're all stuck with tough decisions as to which option suits our requirements.

[FDDJ 0]

Is it really a difficult decision though?

 

The vast majority of clients and guests at functions that we perform at (and I am guessing 95%+) will not have a clue nor care less about which bit rate your files are encoded at or which format you have chosen.

 

The only people that may be remotely interested are a very small minority of audiophiles at our gigs and some of us DJs, mainly because we are a little bit geeky about our sound despite the fact no one else can tell the difference. :shrug:

[RobbieD 0]

The vast majority of clients and guests at functions that we perform at (and I am guessing 95%+) will not have a clue nor care less about which bit rate your files are encoded at or which format you have chosen.

 

The only people that may be remotely interested are a very small minority of audiophiles at our gigs and some of us DJs, mainly because we are a little bit geeky about our sound despite the fact no one else can tell the difference. :shrug:

I understand where you are coming from Steve and agree that customers don't directly care what bit rate you are using.

 

But this is one of several factors that affects the overall sound quality. (Others being equipment used, how the system is set up and how it is run.)

 

Overall I feel that sound quality is more important than lighting (which gets many threads here) but less important than music choice, presentation and customer service.

 

But good sound does make a difference:

 

I only occasionally get direct complements on my sound quality, but often have had indirect complements on it, such as people saying (when re-booking me) that they like the fact that my music was loud enough for them to enjoy dancing to, yet didn't hurt their ears or prevent conversation. - This isn't because I have found some perfect volume (or use Bose L1 speakers!) but because I have a clean high, quality sound.

[UKHero 0]

I think the higher bit rates only really come in to there own if you are using the best equipment all the way down the line... Ie sound Card - Mixer - EQ - Amp - Speakers...

 

Most guys on here who use digital files probably use A, The built in sound card or B, A sound Blaster or other derivative.....

 

I used to use a SB audigy but recently replaced it with a UA101 by edirol, now with out changing anything else (Bit Rate Etc) the sonic quality was so much better...

 

I do feel a bit of Bit rate snobbery creaping in on this site I have files at 128 and files at 320 and have never ever had bad comments about my sound infact I get very good comments from clients...

 

I do tend to rip at 192 as this feels like a nice compromise on file size audio quality and HD space...

 

Nik

 

[BigBen 0]

Bit rate snobbery - nice one!

 

I currently use an old Win98 laptop, using MP3's ripped at various rates although the majority will be 128. I use the headphone socket on the laptop to connect to my SoundLAB mixer.

 

When I use my HZ's or IDEX coffins, the sound is OK. Now I use a Bose the sound has improved, but I started to notice how bad some of the music sounded...and I am no audiophile! So now I use CD's for 95% or more of the night. The lappie just gathers dust.

 

I have already got another lappie, I am planning on getting an Edirol, a Denon mixer, a Denon 4500 CD player, the Denon HD2500 and a second Bose system in the new year. At that stage I won't want to be playing any compressed music if I can help it - hence the reason why I'm favouring WAV's.

[brianmole 0]

Big ben, when I upgraded to the Bose system, it was very noticeable how poor the few 192K files were when I ran a CDR through the system, a little experimentation showed that 256 was very close to the original CD. The Bose shows up poor quality source very well. Start with the highest quality souce you can afford.

[RobbieD 0]

I do feel a bit of Bit rate snobbery creaping in on this site I have files at 128 and files at 320 and have never ever had bad comments about my sound infact I get very good comments from clients...

That was never my intention.

 

And I can understand people having collections of 128Kbs files which were ripped when hard discs were small and expensive.

 

But now that they are cheap, I believe it makes sense to rip at the highest rate you can.

 

Even if lower bit rates sound OK to you now, on your current system, you may not feel the same when you upgrade your gear at a later date.

 

Cue sound bite from Brian:

when I upgraded to the Bose system, it was very noticeable how poor the few 192K files were when I ran a CDR through the system, a little experimentation showed that 256 was very close to the original CD. The Bose shows up poor quality source very well.

Some more facts and figures:

 

I mentioned above that you can fit around 11,000 tracks on a 250GB hard disc as FLAC files. But maybe your collection is larger than that. OK, you can fit around 50,000 tracks on a 250GB hard disc as 320Kbs mp3 files - so I can't personally see any reason to use less than 320Kbs for new rips.

 

But I'm interested to know why people would want to continue to rip at low bit rates in future, when disc space is so cheap? (The Poll is "what bit rate would you rip at in future", rather than "what bit rate is most of your existing collection".)

[UKHero 0]

That is exactly what I am saying with the new Bose system you are heading into HiFi quality reproduction and aslong as all the other components are of such high quality I agree that you should go the extra mile and rip at Wav or very close... Else what is the point in paying such large amounts of money to then criple it with low KBs....

 

Nik

 

Eskie and Edirol is a high quality sound card I have the UA101 there is also an FA101 depending on your laptop outputs ets very good bit of kit... And I think anyone who uses the bose rig should consider this for there digital playin system....

 

Nik

 

[Eskie 0]

Eskie and Edirol is a high quality sound card I have the UA101 there is also an FA101 depending on your laptop outputs ets very good bit of kit..

 

Nik

Nik, what is the price range for these soundcards?

are you familiar with either of the following soundcards:

Midiman Delta 44

GIGAPort AG

If you are familiar with either/both of these how would the sound compare with the Edirol?

[UKHero 0]

Eskie and Edirol is a high quality sound card I have the UA101 there is also an FA101 depending on your laptop outputs ets very good bit of kit..

 

Nik

Nik, what is the price range for these soundcards?

are you familiar with either of the following soundcards:

Midiman Delta 44

GIGAPort AG

If you are familiar with either/both of these how would the sound compare with the Edirol?

 

 

Sorry dont know them and not used them... The edirol is a usb or fire wire device with 10 ins and 10 outs it sounds fantastic have a google for it there are a few reviews around.. UK price around £250 - £300

 

 

Nik

[Andy Westcott 0]

"Bitrate snobbery" tongue out icon

It can't exist, can it? Simply because we all have the option to opt for the higher qualities, and no excuses!

 

"The big problem with WAV is the lack of TAG info"

Agreed, although as I don't use mp3s, I'd missed this important point!

[slug boy 0]

i don't think anyone's really too fussed about it, as long as it's good enough for a sing and dance!!

[UKHero 0]

"Bitrate snobbery" tongue out icon

It can't exist, can it? Simply because we all have the option to opt for the higher qualities, and no excuses!

 

"The big problem with WAV is the lack of TAG info"

Agreed, although as I don't use mp3s, I'd missed this important point!

 

 

You know me like to coin a new phrase now and then lol

 

But as slug Boy says as long as it sounds good and the punters are happy whats the fuss

 

Nik

 

[Andy Westcott 0]

But some people will notice crap sound quality. Not everyone, but some.

And it will be these people who will bad-mouth your disco, possibly damaging your reputation.

 

I have had quite a large number of people comment on my sound in recent years, so it does get noticed - I've taken the trouble to set myself up with what I consider to be a quality PA system, although I must confess it was my interest in sound systems which caused me to do this, the effect on the audience was secondary to my desire to make a good sounding system.

 

Back to bitrates again:

128 equates to a high frequency cutoff of about 11 kilohertz, well within the hearing range of even the elderly, so it would be highly noticeable to the younger generation.

 

If you were going to settle with that kind of frequency response, you could save a whack on speakers and buy cheap full-range single cone units, which in most cases would stretch up to 11Khz. No real need for HF units at all.....

[RobbieD 0]

But some people will notice crap sound quality. Not everyone, but some.

And it will be these people who will bad-mouth your disco, possibly damaging your reputation.

I'm not so sure on this.

 

I think that the majority of the public don't expect a disco to sound good. If a disco sounds bad, they just accept that "disco's sound like that".

 

They are more likely to be impressed if you have particularly good sound, than complain about bad sound, and it is also something that will help to increase your repeat bookings (if only slightly).

 

Some corporate customers in particular can be fussy about sound quality, where as your local pub doesn't care what it sounds like, as long as the bar takings go up.

[Andy Westcott 0]

"I think that the majority of the public don't expect a disco to sound good."

 

You could be right - there are certainly a lot of, shall we say, 'average' PA systems in circulation out there, although the recent influx of Bose systems is bound to help here.

 

So are you saying I could have got by all these years with just a HomeMix?? :scared:

I could have saved myself a lot of sweat, some blood and a lot of backache if you'd told me sooner!!

 

Oh well, in defence of my statement, I most certainly do notice when a disco sounds crap, although I'd draw the line at acting on it; Squawky inflatable speakers which give you earache at 50 watts input are not for me, and I'd like to think other people noticed as well. On the odd occasion I have attended a poor sounding disco, those around me have commented on it, but thinking about it, that could have been for my benefit.....

[UKHero 0]

No I do agree with you andy I too think sound is important and would hate it if people said my sound was bad its a proffesional pride thing i guess what I mean is I'm happy if it sounds good to me as I do think over the years I have attained good judgment of sound and as said above get good comments about my output...

 

 

Byt I must admit i do have a few files at 128 and as said before sound fine to me...If they did not i would not play them...

 

 

Nik