• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Audio Transparency, File Format and Bitrate Survey

File Format and Bitrate of Choice?

  • MP3 (320 kbps)

    Votes: 14 10.1%
  • MP3 (128 kbps)

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • AAC (256 kbps)

    Votes: 7 5.0%
  • AAC (128 kbps)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Opus (160 kbps)

    Votes: 5 3.6%
  • Opus (96 kbps)

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • FLAC

    Votes: 93 66.9%
  • WAV

    Votes: 5 3.6%
  • Doesn't matter

    Votes: 7 5.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 4.3%

  • Total voters
    139

LeftCoastTim

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
375
Likes
757
I voted Opus 160 because I've ABXed some problem tracks and came to that value. I also like Vorbis at -q 6, which targets 192kbps. I try not to use MP3 because I can just barely make out artifact on "clapton_44k" sample from this listening test, at LAME -V0. The first guitar note has a buzz (a chain of short attacks) that gets smeared by mp3.

All of that being said, the artifacts are "noticeable, but not annoying" at bitrates much lower than that, even for mp3.

I can't believe people refuse to put up with imperceptible artifacts from Apple AAC/256, when in comparison, dust on vinyl makes such a loud racket.

My archive library is in flac for peace of mind reasons, but I'm happy to listen to transparent lossy codecs.

I wish more audio people would adopt subjective ratings like lossy encodings: 5 for indistinguishable, 4 for distinguishable but not annoying, 3 for distinguishable and slightly annoying, and so forth.

For me, CD has always been 5. Vinyl is between 3 and 4 (obviously). Since between CD and HiRes is a 5, I have no use for HiRes.
 
Last edited:

jasonhanjk

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
252
Likes
180
Hi,

The poll aims to collect data on which file format and bitrate combination is preferred by most individuals (or sounds acoustically transparent to them when compared to lossless).
Ain't Flac already a lossless format?
Anyway I choose others because this survey doesn't have 192kb MP3.
 

MCH

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
2,581
Likes
2,197
Are you sure that the 1TB disk was a rotating hard disk and not a SSD?
Well of course, the technology has changed, but the price per Mb... this is my experience:
ca. 2006 1tb exrernal hdd: 110eur still working!
2021 1tb external ssd: 120eur
And still 2021 1tb external hdd: around 60eur
Not much of a change in 15 years for computer related electronics
Edit: *for being computer related electronics
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
speed, weight, availability and size has changed.

15 years ago a relatively slow 32MB CF memory card costed way more than a 32 GB micro SD
The computing power of a 15 year old PC is less than your average phone a.t.m.
 

kiwifi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
235
Likes
187
ALAC (FLAC)
 
Last edited:

2M2B

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
118
Likes
73
You didn't add 160kbps AAC which I mainly use, With Lame MP3/FHG AAC to cover edge cases.
 

MCH

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
2,581
Likes
2,197
speed, weight, availability and size has changed.

15 years ago a relatively slow 32MB CF memory card costed way more than a 32 GB micro SD
The computing power of a 15 year old PC is less than your average phone a.t.m.
Sorry, wanted to say "for being computer related electronics". What i mean is that one expects anything related to computers decreases price per given metric or increases metric for a given price at least one order of magnitude in such a time frame, in your example even 3 orders of magnitude. Hence my surprise when i needed to buy a new external drive... prices were basically the same! Yeah, smaller, more silent, but for my use case, same result.
In any case 1 tb of rock and roll is a lot of rock and roll even in FLAC, so why not
 

David Harper

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Messages
359
Likes
434
WAV 16/44.1 just so I could tell myself it's the same as CD. I could have used 320 kbs and it would have sounded fine.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,697
Is Apple still being hairshirted about FLAC support on iOS etc ? If not then to my mind 16/44.1 across all streaming services in a FLAC container should be the norm.

For ripping or purchasing for local file storage, same.

For anything at a greater bit depth or sample rate, just use the most efficient FLAC compression but as an optional streaming layer.

If bandwidth/ data costs are a concern for some, aac/mp3 above 256 as a lower tier setting.
 

Grumpish

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Messages
148
Likes
143
FLAC - although that is for consistency these days. I used to be able to tell the difference, before my hearing started to drop off, between MP3 320 and FLAC, but I don't how much of that was down to the psychoacoustic modelling that is built into MP3 and the additional processing overhead.
 

Rottmannash

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
2,969
Likes
2,606
Location
Nashville
Well of course, the technology has changed, but the price per Mb... this is my experience:
ca. 2006 1tb exrernal hdd: 110eur still working!
2021 1tb external ssd: 120eur
And still 2021 1tb external hdd: around 60eur
Not much of a change in 15 years for computer related electronics
Edit: *for being computer related electronics
I just saw a Western Digital external HD for $39.99 at Best Buy. Storage is dirt cheap nowadays.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I voted FLAC as all my ripped files are FLAC and I buy FLAC downloads. Given that memory is cheap I figure why not. But I would be perfectly happy with 320k MP3, I'm playing a psycho-acoustic trick on myself.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
Well of course, the technology has changed, but the price per Mb... this is my experience:
ca. 2006 1tb exrernal hdd: 110eur still working!
2021 1tb external ssd: 120eur
And still 2021 1tb external hdd: around 60eur
Not much of a change in 15 years for computer related electronics
Edit: *for being computer related electronics
This is because both prices are for disks far out of the main stream. If you look at disks using the same technology then the models with the smallest and the largest storage size share similar bad price/byte relations - caused by low production numbers I'd say. Look at disks with medium storage size (let's say half of the biggest ones) and then compare generations and you'll see that price/byte drops significantly. Beware though that short fluctations of the market price can be very high!
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
I just saw a Western Digital external HD for $39.99 at Best Buy. Storage is dirt cheap nowadays.
In March 2021 I bought an external 18 TB disk (Western Digital 18TB Elements Desktop with a single 18TB hard disk) for €379. This is much cheaper in price/byte than the 1 TB disk. It was acually cheaper than buying a OEM disk without external housing - don't know how they can do this ...
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,697
In March 2021 I bought an external 18 TB disk (Western Digital 18TB Elements Desktop with a single 18TB hard disk) for €379. This is much cheaper in price/byte than the 1 TB disk. It was acually cheaper than buying a OEM disk without external housing - don't know how they can do this ...
Bonkers
 

pseudoid

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,116
Likes
3,416
Location
33.58 -117.88
Actually, i was quite surprised when i recently found out that 1TB HDD costs today still the same than in 2010.
Seagate Cheetah ST3300007LW (SCSI@320Mbps w/10K.7rpm) @300GB was around $400 in 2009. Heck, a single SCSI cable from the AdaptecController (@$300+) to a single HDD was $99 on a good find. Of course, if you had a SCSI chain as a part of your computer, you had a have a bunches of HDDs strung together bcuz the capacity just was not there for the $$ but the performance was unbeatable, the 15k rpm versions were passed the 'knee-of-the-curve (re: Performance/$$).
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
For myself, i keep it as wav as in uncompressed. I dont see the need to compress it since we have ample storage space (1TB HDD can store over 1000 CDs). for redundancy, i use a 2 HDD NAS in RAID 1.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Actually, i was quite surprised when i recently found out that 1TB HDD costs today still the same than in 2010.
But fortunately as my salary is a bit better than in 2010, i use flac (why not?)

This is because the manufacturing cost of HDDs have hit bottom. A 2TB drive barely cost more than 1TB to manufacture (mostly is just an additional head).
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Seagate Cheetah ST3300007LW (SCSI@320Mbps w/10K.7rpm) @300GB was around $400 in 2009. Heck, a single SCSI cable from the AdaptecController (@$300+) to a single HDD was $99 on a good find. Of course, if you had a SCSI chain as a part of your computer, you had a have a bunches of HDDs strung together bcuz the capacity just was not there for the $$ but the performance was unbeatable, the 15k rpm versions were passed the 'knee-of-the-curve (re: Performance/$$).

Yeah!! Before SSDs, 15k rpm scsi were the fastest drives and they cost a bomb!! Still remember those Megaraid controllers using Intel chips.
 
Top Bottom