MP3 bit-rate realities

[rsp2rsp2]

With Cubase/Wavelab, I wish to take my WAV file songs and make an MP3 version that I can load on my web site and send via email. I do not care about download times or file sizes. I only care about sound quality being as close to CD as possible. Can any of you obsessive pros (that have done the testing) comment on what the highest MP3 bit rate should be (without going to the point where the human ear or average high-end MP3 player cannot hear the difference)? 96? 112? 128? 160? 192? 224? 256? 320?

[fortyseven]

128 is a fair balance between file size and quality.

[suprstar]

Originally Posted by fortyseven

128 is a fair balance between file size and quality.

The OP doesn't want a fair balance, he wants SQ, and 128 isn't even CLOSE to cd quality.. Especially when you have intricate hihats and cyms, 128 is just not gonna cut it. When your bitrate goes down, the 1st thing to go is the high frequencies, and the highs get all swishy at 128.. 192 is a huge improvement, 256 and 320 sound great. There's not much difference in 256 and 320 imo, that's approaching cd quality. Encode some mp3's at different bitrates and listen, you can decide how good is good enough.

If file size and download time aren't an issue, why not go with 320?

[tacman7]

Do your own tests, if you can't tell the difference I doubt your users will.

What are your listeners hearing it with? They have some nice $1000+ monitors hooked up to their computer? Or $29 models?

Your not going to be able to tell the difference from a quality encoder like wavelab.

I use 128k or 160 max. In SoundForge 128k is called "CD Quality", 160k is "Transparent Audio".

[suprstar]

I can easily hear the diff. between 128, 192, and cd wav in my 3 main listening environments, and my stuff isn't that great: My studio has Behringer truth 2031A's. My home theater is a Technics receiver with Infinity 5.1. My car is an aftermarket Alpine / Kicker / JL system.

I'd seriously be amazed if someone listened to a 128k mp3 and a cd wav file back to back, and thought 128 was cd quality, I'd think their hearing was shot, or they were listening on myspace

[tacman7]

I still say you have to look at your audience.

One reviewer had this conclusion on the subject:

It is clear that the 128kbs rate does not produce a quality equal to a CD on a good quality Hi-Fi installation. We can wonder if Fraunhofer's institute has not made an error by limiting its ACM pro codec to 128kbs. However, in the context of a computer use, the quality is equal to the one obtained by reading an Audio CD on a CD-ROM reader. The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements. The test equipment is indeed better than the majority of Hi-fi installations.

from:
MP3' Tech - listening tests

[fortyseven]

Originally Posted by suprstar

The OP doesn't want a fair balance, he wants SQ, and 128 isn't even CLOSE to cd quality..

Thanks for pointing that out.. dont know what I'd do without you!