What is your fav. MP3 bitrate? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Polls - Everything Else...
-- What is your fav. MP3 bitrate?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Posted by DJ Newday on May-08-2002 22:54:

What is your fav. MP3 bitrate?

Mine is 192.

Cuz the quality is good to play at the parties and size is not that much bigger than 160 kbps.

Posted by drizzt81 on May-09-2002 00:57:

160vbr or 192cbr

Posted by DJ Teknique on May-09-2002 04:31:

192 kbps

Posted by Lytchix on May-09-2002 11:11:

192 kbps

Posted by Shito on May-09-2002 13:52:

192 for me too...!

Posted by fastmp3 on May-09-2002 14:29:

192 for everyone and let's close this poll

Posted by Dj Martijn on May-09-2002 14:37:

well i voted 320 kbps so ha. its nice to have the better quality mp3's when possible although im more than happy with 192 or even 160.

Posted by Timetwister on May-09-2002 17:50:

Preferably 192 or higher, but 160 does the job too

Posted by davinox on May-09-2002 23:26:

256.

there is very little difference between 256 and 320, but there is a difference between 256 and 192!!!

Posted by DJ Newday on May-10-2002 14:03:

I read about 192 & 256 yestrday and now I say wish my MP3s was 256 cauz thats so fuckin close to CD quality and 192 isn't. It also depends on what type of encoder you use.

Posted by eXos on May-12-2002 17:32:

If I rip for friends I always do it in 256 nowadays. But mostly its 192 because of the scene rulez

Posted by SgtFoo on May-20-2002 14:43:

i don't get it!! every1 wants 192?!!!

160 kbps cbr is perfect.... less size than 192 or higher and the quality is CD transparent!!! just fine enough!

Posted by KilldaDJ on May-20-2002 18:08:

im on a 56k, 64kbps mp3s good enuff for me, or else 128, but generally i dont mind
cant stand 256+
its no difference from 160+
not for me anyway
i must be going deaf or summin

Posted by davinox on May-20-2002 21:17:

quote:
Originally posted by KilldaDJ
im on a 56k, 64kbps mp3s good enuff for me, or else 128, but generally i dont mind
cant stand 256+
its no difference from 160+
not for me anyway
i must be going deaf or summin

not deaf, you just need better speakers!!!!

Posted by Xplorer on May-21-2002 12:56:

192 because of its size/quality, don�t think it should be higher then 256...

Posted by Fraggle on May-21-2002 15:20:

yep...192 i find is a good balance between sq & size

256 & 320 just seem too big and don't really sound a great deal better compared to 128 vs 192

Posted by vito on May-24-2002 01:09:

192 is preferred, but ill take 160 if ive got no other options, but no lower
if i had cable and a huge hdd id prefer 320 as im sure everyone would

Posted by JM on May-24-2002 17:02:

fools. cant see how 320 could NOT be everyone's favorite bitrate??? he didnt ask about the size of the mp3, just the bitrate....so of course i'll choose the best one, 320......

>JM<

Posted by Legend on May-24-2002 18:26:

don't mind me, sig test

Posted by ScuL on Jun-23-2002 17:35:

192..
best quality/size ratio.

Posted by ali92 on Jul-10-2002 01:51:

I picked 320 kbps but, if I wanted to put more than 5 and 1/2 hours on a SINGLE CD, I'd choose 256 kbps. I'm planning on putting Magik 1 - 5 (when I buy it) on ONE MP3-CD at either 256 kbps CBR, VBR (Minimum: 256, Maximum: 320), or 320 kbps overburning CD. Of course I use the LATEST LAME encoder to get the BEST quality. I may use VBR with 112 Min, 320 Max. so I can put Magik 6 (and maybe 7) on the CD but, I don't know yet as I don't have ANY official Magiks. All other MP3-CDs that come from my albums are 320 kbps, LAME, NO QUESTIONS ASKED! My uncle can HEAR the difference. Read my posts on sound quality and you'll know why I choose 320 LAME. http://www.r3mix.net/ is good for lots of info on quality. Bye for now!

Posted by ali92 on Jul-10-2002 01:57:

quote:
Originally posted by !_PeTrUs_!
If I rip for friends I always do it in 256 nowadays. But mostly its 192 because of the scene rulez

WHAT RULES? If I was ripping from vinyl and releasing it on the 'Net, I'd use 320 kbps, LAME encoder! Why not? Release groups probably love quality so, why not (even 256's good but, not good enough to survive more than a few encodings/decodings without losing quality)?

Posted by jdat on Jul-10-2002 02:03:

quote:
Originally posted by ali92
even 256's good but, not good enough to survive more than a few encodings/decodings without losing quality)?

no matter what rate encoding/decoding only makes you lose quality everytime, albeit the "destruction" is stronger at lower rates that is true

Posted by BTG on Jul-10-2002 20:28:

i honestly cant tell much of a difference between 192 and any higher. so, 192 is good for me

Posted by Lira on Jul-11-2002 04:27:

Bah, who cares about the quality: music is what really matters Well, I've got two young brothers who are always destroying my beloved CD's, therefore, everytime I buy something, I encode it. Usually, I choose 160, but lately I've been enconding at 192 as well...

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »