is using 96kbps mp3 good

[cns00]

i have some large video files that i want to compress. i saw https://youtu.be/EuD-jPmAUQk and the guy said to use 96 kbps mp3 for the audio codec and i am always selecting that when i am compressing a video file by using handbrake. the sound of the converted file sounds ok to me

i want to know is there a big difference in audio quality if you select 128 kbps mp3 or 96 kbps mp3 when you are compressing a large video file?

for example the original video file is 128 kbps aac. i compared it to the 96 kbps mp3 converted file. they sound the same and i couldn't notice a difference in the audio quality

[jagabo]

96 kbps is fine if you don't mind the loss of high frequencies, the loss of stereo separation, and phase distortions making it sound like the recording was made underwater.

[cns00]

96 kbps is fine if you don't mind the loss of high frequencies, the loss of stereo separation, and phase distortions making it sound like the recording was made underwater.

what do you mean? i compared the original movie file with 128 kbps aac to the compressed movie file with 96 kbps mp3. they sound the same

[flashandpan007]

96 kbps is fine if you don't mind the loss of high frequencies, the loss of stereo separation, and phase distortions making it sound like the recording was made underwater.

[Atak_Snajpera]

96 kbps is fine if you don't mind the loss of high frequencies, the loss of stereo separation, and phase distortions making it sound like the recording was made underwater.

what do you mean? i compared the original movie file with 128 kbps aac to the compressed movie file with 96 kbps mp3. they sound the same

RIP CD (music) to 96 kbps mp3 and they you will hear huge degradation in quality!

[johns0]

If you are listening with your average computer speakers it will sound ok,try playing it on a decent sound system.

[cns00]

RIP CD (music) to 96 kbps mp3 and they you will hear huge degradation in quality!

ok you are right about that. music mp3 needs a high audio bitrate because the audio has a lot of special effects

however, i am not talking about music mp3. i am talking about the audio in a movie file which is mostly people talking and some background music. there was no degradation in the audio quality when i compressed a movie file and i selected 96 kbps mp3

[johns0]

Why use mp3?If you need to encode to 96 kbps then stay with aac,it's a much better codec.

[Cornucopia]

All the 96kbps mp3 I have ever heard sound like crap compared to the original, but you are the only one who can determine whether you find something acceptable or not.


Scott

[pandy]

i compared the original movie file with 128 kbps aac to the compressed movie file with 96 kbps mp3. they sound the same

however, i am not talking about music mp3. i am talking about the audio in a movie file which is mostly people talking and some background music. there was no degradation in the audio quality when i compressed a movie file and i selected 96 kbps mp3

For you it sound the same for someone else it will sounds poorly - this is highly subjective topic and we don't know nature/characteristic of this audio so it may be still OK as it may be low complexity audio with limited bandwidth and practically monophonic.

So in other words - it may sound ok for you and your subjective perspective may be valid only for this audio and can't be applied as general rule for other listeners and for other audio's.

[mrbass]

All my music is 96kpbs opus. Did extensive testing before converting entire collection. Now if you wanna come across as high and mighty and if you do you shouldn’t even touch digital music as the vinyl vibrations fluctuate the nerve endings in the ear and climax you to nirvana.

All my videos I encode to 32kpbs opus if it’s just talking. All audiobooks same to 32kpbs aac. Sorry I say this and can’t claim to be an elitist and better than everyone else.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Encoding audio below 128 kbps makes zero sense unless you stuck in Xvid era and still Rip your movies to 700 MiB CD.
BTW Opus 64 kbps sounds better for me than MP3 128 kbps. (Better stereo separation)

[ridibunda]

Encoding audio below 128 kbps makes zero sense unless you stuck in Xvid era and still Rip your movies to 700 MiB CD.
BTW Opus 64 kbps sounds better for me than MP3 128 kbps. (Better stereo separation)

Well said.

I think, for a stereo sound, 96-128 kbps EAC3 (Enhanced AC3/Dolby Digital Plus) is the best option. EAC3 is widely used by streaming services like Netflix.

[pandy]

Well said.

I think, for a stereo sound, 96-128 kbps EAC3 (Enhanced AC3/Dolby Digital Plus) is the best option. EAC3 is widely used by streaming services like Netflix.

See no point to support crippled, closed, payed codec when better alternatives exist and they are open and they are royalties free... AC-3 can be justified by its maturity and market penetration but EAC-3 is corpo codec...

[ridibunda]

ffmpeg and eac3to support EAC3 encoding, don't they?

[pandy]

ffmpeg and eac3to support EAC3 encoding, don't they?

And did they support 7.1 encoding? To use this codec outside PC you need to pay royalties to the Dolby - see no point in supporting payed codecs especially that EAC3 doesn't have anything special - IMHO mp3 offer same or better quality for 2 channel, AC3 support up to 5.1 with comparable to EAC3 quality. Plenty HW players do not support EAC3, same with many TV models. To be honest it is not clear to me why EAC3 was chosen by for example Europe as primary audio codec for terrestrial DTV (i smell corruption and money under table) - 5.1 vs 7.1 IMHO is insufficient argument especially that AAC offer same functionality and way more than EAC3 can provide ever. EAC3 is ad hoc designed codec to extend Dolby rights (as AC3 is or soon will became patent free) and force people to pay for outdated technology...

[aedipuss]

why compress audio tracks at all??? they are small compared to the video and there is no need to compromise your enjoyment of a movie immensely by re-encoding them. buy a bigger hard drive.