CD Quality Mp3s

Not open for further replies.


Solid State Member
What does the kbps have to do with the CD Quality? Wave files have 1411 kbps. But some programs say that there Mp3s are CD Quality as low as 128 kbps?

If you want top quality, is it always best to go with .wav?
Hey Suhl.
Kbps means. Kilo Byte Per Second. meaning, every second takes this amount of Kilo Byte. mp3 and wav are way to compact the files. the less it is compact, the better is the quality. wav files are supposed to be the best quality music files. 128kbps mp3 file = good quality; 194kbps mp3 file = cd quality; 324kpbs mp3 file = rare quality;
194kbps mp3 file will sound just fine, though if you have lots of free space (around 60-80 MG for a file) then it may be better..
cheers m8..

oh, I'm sorry if I mistaked the calcutlations. it maybe not 194 and 324, but it is around these nubmer.... sorry..
Musicmatch Recorder

CD Quality (128 kbps)
Near CD Quality (96 kbps)
FM Radio Quality (64 kbps)
Custom (320 kbps)
Custom VBR (60%)

CD Quality (1411 kbps)

Transparency (96 kbps) what is that?
CD Quality (64 kbps)
Superior FM Radio Quality (40 kbps)
Custom (64 kbps)
Custom VBR (1%)

Windows Media Audio
CD Quality (64 kbps)
Near CD Quality (48 kbps)
FM Radio Quality (32 kbps)
Custom (5 kbps)

Is it pointless to have something with more kbps than CD Quality? Does the extra kbps have any benefits at all? Is there any difference between them what-so-ever?

If I was using an extremely good stereo system, could you tell the differnce between two CD Quality files if one had an extremely lower kbps than the other one?

Anyone know why some formats don't require as much kbps as others to be considered "CD Quality"? Or what "Custom" is for?
192kbps mp3 file is just fine..
sorry m8, I haven't seen that this thread isn't in it's right forum.. I had to move it..
No, there is no advantage over 128kbps, none that you will be able to notice anyway.
I think I usually notice between 192 and 128, but suit yourself.. you'll especialy notice the diffrence after burning.. but ok, 128 will work just fine.. myself prefers 192... it is even logical cause it is less compressed.. but fine..
Quotes from varies websites

I went ahead and randomly collected quotes from different websites to see what views people had on this subject.

Sounds & Visions Online

A rate of 128 kbps is usually considered near-CD quality; CDs stream data at more than a megabit per second, but itÂ’s tough for many people to distinguish between CDs and 128-kbps MP3 tracks. Still higher data rates. like 192 kbps, win over audio professionals. According to sound engineer John Seymour (whose credits include Dave Matthews and Alice in
Chains), 192-kbps MP3 tracks ripped by RealJukebox Plus are "effectively indistinguishable from the original CD."


When compared to the original audio, the quality of the file encoded at 128 Kbps in MP3 is generally acceptable, except for certain high frequencies (such as hi-hat cymbals), which begin to sound warbly.


For higher quality sound - and bigger files - you can encode songs at 192 Kbps, or even 256 Kbps (which is true CD quality).

Better yet, most MP3 encoders offer "variable bit rate encoding" which is a good way to maximize sound quality and file size simultaneously. In variable bit-rate (VBR) encoding, the software analyzes the data and determines the optimal bit rate for encoding each frame of sound. For instance, cymbals are troublesome for MP3 because they represent "white noise," or a combination of many different frequencies of sounds. By contrast, a bass drum beat has a fairly straightforward frequency that can be easily represented in MP3. So when a song is encoded using VBR, the program analyzes the data and works within a range -- say, 128 Kbps and 192 Kbps -- to find the optimal encoding rate for each frame of sound. The end result is an MP3 file that is optimized for both size and sound quality.


Aw heck... this is another of those questions that people debate *endlessly*. There really is no one answer - it depends on your ears, your equipment, etc. I think it's probably fair to say that 128 Kbps is a bit on the low side, although it may sound fine from some encoders for some songs under some circumstances, whilst 160 Kbps done by a good encoder should sound pretty good to most people under most circumstances... *but* I know some people will insist on higher standards. Different encoding software really does make a difference - some encoding software produces results that sound pretty awful to me at 128 Kbps, whereas other software produces ok results... e.g.

As to what MP3 encoding rate can approximate to CD quality data to the satisfaction of a listener - well that's the part people argue about endlessly. It depends on the individual listener, and on the playback equipment and the circumstances. I think it's fair to say that few people feel that a rate of lower than 128 kbps is adequate. A lot of people find 160 kbps good enough, but some still hear problems and go for higher rates. Also all encoders are not equal, allowing more room for discussion (that is encoder X may produce much better sounding files at 128 kbps than encoder Y).

mobile enertainment

Sound quality, of course, depended on the encoding bitrate, as well as the quality of the encoding software itself. Tracks recorded at 96 kbps (kilobits per second) started to sound pretty decent, tracks at 128 kbps were pretty good, and tracks above 192 kbps were essentially CD quality. The sound quality of any MP3 file is mainly dependent on the encoding conditions, but the PADVD-500 provided good MP3 quality without any obvious contributions or omissions of its own from the decoding process.

btw: someone mentioned that women seem to be able to hear defects more than men because they tend to have better hearing.
well.. I think it just repeated what was said here. thanks for bringing this quoats, help understanding.. 128 is weaker, 192 is better.. use 192 if you have free space and want quality, use 128 if you don't mind the quality..
cheers m8, thanks again..
Personally I cantnotice a big difference between 128 and 192, when I burn them to CD and play em in a MP3 player, it sounds like CD quality to me. Im sure if you have an excellent stero, you would hear a difference though.
that is exactly what I intended to say.. I had tried a thing or two, and noticed that you can't notice the quality difference on regular computer amplifier, but you can notice the difference in a stero. just check and you'll see..
cheers m8s..
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom