Bitrate for ripping my CDs

[clark33]

Is there much of an noticable difference if I rip at 192 kbps rather than 320 kpbs?

 

[ignatzatsonic]

No.

192 is generally considered the rate at which very few people can detect an mp3 from the same song as a WAV file.

Many people can't tell the difference even at 160 or 128.

You may have golden ears or think you have golden ears. In that case, use 320.

Or use 320 if you know you will never have space problems. 320 bit-rate files take up nearly twice as much space as 192.

I use 192 whenever possible. If my original source is monaural, I use 96, which contains as much data as 192 stereo.

 

[ksioamaral89]

192 is decent bitrate for MP3 (as long as the bitrate is constant), but I think it's up to you,if you do notice no difference at all, stay with 192.I believe even in low-end audio gear 320 kbps is much clearer than 192,at least for me.Most of times I can hear more details or at least they are sharper than 192, like drum cymbals.

Most of times, 192 kbps sounds a bit "muffled" compared to 320, but that's just my 2¢.

 

[smarteyeball]

I prefer 320 myself. I also find it to be a little clearer and sharper even on low end gear. I can notice a more distinct difference when I wear my headphones which are a much higher quality.

It can also depend on the music itself and how it was recorded. Ie you would notice a difference between classical and techno.


Either way, 192 would be the minimum rate I'd personally use. I'm not fussed about space saving.