Crave Talk: What does your bit rate say about you?
Tags: rip, downloaded, listen, hard disk
What kind of a digital music user are you? Were you part of the original Napster revolution? Maybe you're in your 50s and prefer huge audio files in order to preserve the clarity and feeling of Mark Knopfler's fret-fondling.
Whatever bit rate you choose, you might not be able to help what your choice says about you. Let's dive in at the shallow end.
128kbps
You probably don't know the bit rate at which your music is encoded -- this is the default iTunes rate and it seems good to you. You're probably happy with the headphones that came with your MP3 player. But you may have started downloading free music back when Napster was in its original illegal P2P form, and you may currently be a Limewire user, having never heard of or felt the need to understand BitTorrent. You don't see the advantage in hard-disk-based MP3 players and wouldn't know what to listen out for if offered an album encoded in lossless format. You're perfectly happy with having a 2GB MP3 player or an iPod Shuffle. You're unlikely to own a large library of CDs.
160/192kbps
You're likely to have jumped on the bandwagon of the original illegal version of Napster, but have since realised that higher bit rates are noticeable, perhaps by utilising free MP3 encoding tools. You own an average number of CDs and may have spent up to £25 on a pair of headphones, realising that superior hardware can enhance your music-listening experience as much as a higher bit rate. You're possibly a musician or you may have done a music course. As a drummer, for example, you may notice the brightness of cymbals is greater at 192kbps, but you can't see the point in using a bit rate that pushes the average file size over 6MB per track.
256kbps
If you listen to 256kbps (which variable bit rate often averages at), you're a reserved or closet audiophile and you would rather spend more money on a hard-disk-based MP3 player than have either low-quality music or carry only a portion of your music with you. You're likely to own a large collection of CDs but you're the most likely to use BitTorrent to acquire the majority of your albums. You don't have many miscellaneous tracks hanging around in your music library and you owned an iPod mini or 1-4GB MP3 player in the past. You're excited to hear brighter guitars, deeper bass and more defined audible complexities. You don't listen to much classical music.
However, you wouldn't purchase a CD of an album you've already downloaded from BitTorrent just to hear music at a higher quality unless you pro-actively decide to support the band you love. You won't re-rip the CD you buy, deciding instead to leave it untouched in your CD rack. You also ensure your music's ID3 tags are complete, though you don't much care about details such as year of release.
320kbps
You thrive on high-quality music and you actively listen out for the tell-tale signs of high bit rates. You are likely to have downloaded some music from BitTorrent but you mainly buy CDs and rip them yourself. You don't use Limewire for downloading music. You may well have your PC plugged into a hi-fi, or you own an iPod and use a good quality dock to connect it to your sound system. You know what lossless music is, but you possibly can't justify re-ripping your music library due to the storage constraints of lossless audio. You're quite likely to be a Mac user and have considered using Linux on a secondary computer. Your headphones cost at least £50 and you own or are considering owning an HDTV. Your laptop cost at least £1,000. You don't buy music from iTunes because you are aware of how low quality the music is. You are likely to use eMusic and you like mostly rock music. You subscribe to at least two technology podcasts and you were born after 1978.
Lossless (FLAC or Apple Lossless)
You are most likely to be born before 1978. You are the most likely group to be a Mac user and your headphones cost in excess of £60, possibly made by Shure, Sennheiser or Ultimate Ears. You own a fifth-gen video iPod and an HDTV. Your laptop cost at least £1,000 and you consider yourself a cinema fan. You are the least likely to download music illegally, instead preferring to own a huge CD library. You're highly likely to be a musician and own at least one book about either quantum mechanics, philosophy or psychology. Your mobile phone bill is considerably higher than average and you may work in the technology industry.
You're depressed when you see people on the train using their MP3 player's bundled headphones and you probably listen to technology podcasts. You may well know the bit rate your podcasts are encoded at. You used Napster back in the day, but you never stopped buying CDs. You use Limewire or BitTorrent to occasionally sample an album, but you always buy the CD if you like what you hear.
Conclusion or Confusion?
Maybe you've just found yourself falling into the chasm of predictability, a victim of bit rate cliche. Or perhaps you've been left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, reading that your freakish or implacable choices of music compression (or lack of) are too erratic to earn yourself placement in such a pigeon-hole.
Whatever your situation, let us know in the comments below what your choice of bit rate says about you, and was our crystal ball too cloudy? -Nate Lanxon
- Share this article:
RELATED LINKS
Play.com goes DRM-free with all major labels
Hands-on with the Olympus DS-50 voice recorder
Q&A: Is Nokia Comes With Music a good deal?
PhoenixTue 8 May, 2007 12:56pm
Although in broad strokes this may have been accurate a few years ago, variable bitrate encoding has rendered this virtually defunct since it offers high quality music without falling into any of the listed categories.
AndrewTue 8 May, 2007 1:02pm
That's bizarrely accurate. I feel so horribly predictable =(
Nate LanxonTue 8 May, 2007 1:12pm
It is assumed that variable bit rate is used at its highest quality, and as such, averages at the 256kbps mark. This is true in 9/10 cases.
ChrisTue 8 May, 2007 1:48pm
I use a PDA HX4700 & a collection of sd cards for music (useful for doing spreadsheets and other work while you listen); don't use itunes, so expense compared to CD sales online; prefer PC to Mac; found Limewire only gives you bits of albums so gave that up; why bother with BitTorrent?;watch a 15" luggable 25 yr old tv (no scart even!) - but will be moving over to a Sonos set up at home. Oh and I was born quite a bit before 1978. Think the mould has been broken.
mystery userTue 8 May, 2007 4:10pm
I encode at 192 kbps VBR using iTunes. I own over 1000 CDs, and I feel that I have given enough to the music industry, so I download almost everything new from BitTorrent or various Google MP3 search hacks. I have not paid for an album in over a year. I own an 8-core MAc Pro, a $5000 7.1 AV system with a homebrew PVR, and I own a 52" LCD TV that displays 1080p. I owm a PS2, an Xbox 360, and a Nintendo Wii. I also have an Intel Mac Mini hooked up to the TV.
Mystery userTue 8 May, 2007 4:14pm
One more thing. . .
I work at Intel.
luckyluccianoTue 8 May, 2007 6:07pm
I am 60 years old and this man describes me perfectly. Yes, I prefer highest bit rates for downloading but I also own a huge collection of CD's. One thing is different though: I still listen to my beloved vinyl LP's collection! They sound great! They always did.
RJCallinanTue 8 May, 2007 7:04pm
I fit the 256kbps category, although tend to use 192kbps. I think this is mainly due to hard disk constraints on my rapidly ageing computer though.
AnonymousTue 8 May, 2007 11:04pm
Damn, did you really mean to write an article that accurate? That's pretty uncanny. I fit into the lossless category and am indeed middle-aged with a large collection of 70's prog-rock, and I do indeed prefer to buy CD's and rip them myself. How predictable I feel! Good story, Nate.
AnonymousWed 9 May, 2007 2:18pm
I use 256 kbps on all the music I have on my iPod. But I would surely use FLAC/ALAC if there were no space constraints. For me it's a matter of convenience, as I use iTunes to rip the music from CDs, 256 kbps is the highest VBR, so the advantages of 320 kbps CBR would be small. I also prefer nano to regular iPods due to the size difference. (The larger size of a regular iPod would be inconvenient enough to not take it with me as regularly.) I would use other codecs / AAC main profile / AACplus if they were easily available or higher variable bit rates (AAC has a maximum bit rate of 256 kbps per channel, but such rates can't be used on iPods (?)).
I don't download illegally, and I am somewhat surprised you would categorize people who use 256 kbps as such (maybe you are just describing yourselves). I have a somewhat large collection of CDs, and wouldn't buy anything compressed from any online music store. (If I'm not happy with the compression quality, I would be stuck with it.) I would recommend Shure e4c to anyone who hasn't tried them. Too bad iPods can't drive larger, quality headphones (especially with classical music).
Richard HammondWed 9 May, 2007 4:06pm
Nice Try.. I have to use 192k becuase i have so mush music 70gb of music and seen as apple dont do a ipod BIGGER than 80gb after waiting for over a year for somthing bigger I have left them and more on to Better things now i have a 160gb Archos 504 Better that an iPod and have to start ripping CD over again
R3LOADEDWed 9 May, 2007 7:24pm
I'm actually a technophile, owning an iRiver H120 (that died last week :'( ) and I've spent about £20 on a good pair of Sony headphones, but my music is encoded at 128k. I honestly cannot tell the difference between a 256k mp3 and a 128k mp3 in terms of quality. Plus, I have around 6000-odd songs, so this is the best way of fitting them into the limited space that I have.
Lokiz0rFri 11 May, 2007 2:25am
Scarily accurate. I'm in the 320kbps category, and it's almost completely true of my listening habits.
absFri 11 May, 2007 3:09pm
I fit in both the 160/192 and 256kbps groups and think these should be one. Apart from that some of the stuff said in these is spookily accurate.
AnonymousFri 11 May, 2007 11:24pm
Spot On...every bit true, except the Bittorrent bit...I use the service more than described...I know actually feel scared...Big Brother Cameras? WTH
AnonymousMon 14 May, 2007 12:01am
I have a pioneer plasma HDTV, I have B&O headphones and a 5.5 gen ipod. But all my mp3's are in 128Kb encoding and before that I was using 64Kb WMA! And you know why? Because all my Napster and kazzaa and limewire and torrent days are not able to fit in the 120Gb hard drive of my 2500$ laptop.
What kind of bitrate type am I?
UmairTue 15 May, 2007 11:37am
Very accurate indeed. I'm up at 320, and 90% of the paragraph applies to me.
AnonymousFri 21 March, 2008 2:07am
Wow dead on, I use mostly 320 9Zune Marketplace, and CD ripping) really good cds are WMA lossless. And 320 was 98% Dead on
Ask questions, share opinions and find answers in the CNET.co.uk forums
6.6
7.9
PeterTue 8 May, 2007 12:06pm
How eerily correct!