Wots Kbps?

[ancoats]

192,256, 320 Kbps? Whats best for quality? Can all these be burnt to a cd? Haven't a clue what this means, but have been asked this when saving MP3's. Help

[vurt]

its kilobytesperecond

i usually encode for web at 128 kbps,320 is a much higher resolution so better quality
they should all burn to disc for playing in any system that supports mp3 then

[ancoats]

its kilobytesperecond

i usually encode for web at 128 kbps,320 is a much higher resolution so better quality
they should all burn to disc for playing in any system that supports mp3 then

Ah, many thanks Mr V. Enjoy yer cocoa

[Borogove]

its kilobytesperecond

kiloBITS per second actually.

Uncompressed raw CD audio is 16 bits * 2 channels * 44100 samples per second = 1411kbps.

128kbits/sec MP3 is "good enough for rock'n'roll" -- if you compare it to a higher rate there are definitely some artifacts, but for the unwashed masses it sounds good enough. 192kbps is quite good. Only people with no friends complain that 256kbps isn't enough. 320kbps usually satisfies those people.

[vurt]

bits bytes who cares really?
once id had my cocoa tho i wouldnt have got mixed up

[sonicfire]

with good encoders you wont hear a "mp3" @ 192 kbps
or better said, hard to identify

[sonicfire]

its kilobytesperecond

kiloBITS per second actually.

Uncompressed raw CD audio is 16 bits * 2 channels * 44100 samples per second = 1411kbps.

128kbits/sec MP3 is "good enough for rock'n'roll" -- if you compare it to a higher rate there are definitely some artifacts, but for the unwashed masses it sounds good enough. 192kbps is quite good. Only people with no friends complain that 256kbps isn't enough. 320kbps usually satisfies those people.

not to mention mp3pro

[Peel]

Hmmm. Actually, while I've heard the expression "good enough for rock'n'roll" before, it seems to me that rock/pop/electronica fares pretty badly at 128, while a lot of orchestral & world music, amazingly, does very well. (I'm far from an audio snob or golden-ears; in fact 160k normally sounds fine to me; YMMV)
You will get better sound quality with lower file sizes / average bit rate if you use VBR (variable bitrate) encoding. I think at this point software incompatibility with VBR files can safely be considered a thing of the past & there's no reason not to use VBR.

[ChrisE]

bits bytes who cares really ? .................

Your web hosting service might !

[CypherOne]

so not 'keep badger parades simple' then.

[ChrisE]

killer bees prefer sausage

like, how far are we going with this ?

[Voidoid Surrealist]

192-320 LAME VBR. sounds very nice for it's size.
Or you could use Ogg Vorbis...

[Churchy]

interestingly , samplerate doesnt seem to come into the equasion for mp3 compression (ie it doesnt affect filesize)- although if you need to save at really shitty bitrates (ie below 64kbps) you often reduce the samplerate simply because higher freqencies introduce more funky artifacts than lower freqs

[Hovmod]

It's a source of deep confusion, judging by these replies

[Warmonger]

Sample rate most certainly is part of the equation for MP3. If you have a 22050hz source file and compress it to 128kbps, you're losing less information than if you started with a 44100hz file. In the first case (assuming a 16 bit stereo file) your source bitrate was 706kbps, while the 44100hz source was at 1411kbps. In both cases, you're cutting out enough information to end up with a file that is 128kbps, so you're compressing to the same file size, but not compressing with a constant amount.