HI GUYS Me Arpit.This is my first posting to this group. i jus want to know "what is bit rate".Actually i was using "duplicate finder" a software which detects duplicate files on computer. It detected two same mp3 files (same song)but with different file size .I got confused and further checking i clicked on the summary tab of files properties and found out the following: File 1 : 5.77MB AUDIO: Duration : 0:06:18 Bit Rate : 48kbps Channels : 2 (stereo) Audio sample rate : 22kHz File 2 : 2.16 MB AUDIO: Duration : 0:06:18 Bit Rate : 128kbps Channels : 2 (stereo) Audio sample rate : 44 kHz why is the difference in the properties of the files when it the same SONG.Also tell me which one should i keep.which is better.when u play the files then they sound identical .Please help . Thanks in advance.
bit rate FAQ
Started by ●July 25, 2005
Reply by ●July 25, 20052005-07-25
>why is the difference in the properties of the files when it the same >SONG.Also tell me which one should i keep.which is better.when u play >the files then they sound identical .Please help .The higher the bit rate, the better it sounds.
Reply by ●July 25, 20052005-07-25
Andor wrote:>>why is the difference in the properties of the files when it the same >>SONG.Also tell me which one should i keep.which is better.when u play >>the files then they sound identical .Please help . > > > The higher the bit rate, the better it sounds.There's probably a mistake somewhere. Files with higher bit rates are larger. In this case, it appears to be the other way round. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 25, 20052005-07-25
>>why is the difference in the properties of the files when it the same >>SONG.Also tell me which one should i keep.which is better.when u play >>the files then they sound identical .Please help . > > The higher the bit rate, the better it sounds.OTH, if you feel they both sound identical, then of course you have to keep the smaller file (so as not to waste space). This should be the one with the lower bit rate coding (you probably swapped the file sizes when you wrote the question).
Reply by ●July 25, 20052005-07-25
"Arpit" <emailtoarpit@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122308823.316048.76440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> HI GUYS > > Me Arpit.This is my first posting to this group. i jus want to know > "what is bit rate".Actually i was using "duplicate finder" a software > which detects duplicate files on computer. It detected two same mp3 > files (same song)but with different file size .I got confused and > further checking i clicked on the summary tab of files properties and > found out the following: > > File 1 : 5.77MB > > AUDIO: > Duration : 0:06:18 > Bit Rate : 48kbps > Channels : 2 (stereo) > Audio sample rate : 22kHz > > File 2 : 2.16 MB > > AUDIO: > Duration : 0:06:18 > Bit Rate : 128kbps > Channels : 2 (stereo) > Audio sample rate : 44 kHz > > why is the difference in the properties of the files when it the same > SONG.Also tell me which one should i keep.which is better.when u play > the files then they sound identical .Please help .Are you sure they sound identical? If it is typical pop, rock, or jazz music, the difference between the 22kHz and 44kHz sample rate should be pretty apparent. Listen carefully to the treble, especially symbols. The higher bit rate should be much crisper and brighter. Also, as others have mentioned, it appears you have reversed the file sizes when typing them it here. If not, something doesn't add up. As far as which too keep, I would keep the 128kbps version as it should be of higher quality (even if the difference may not be all that audible at first). However, if you are short on storage space (say on a portable player) and are less concerned with quality, the smaller one might be better. To answer the question "what is bit rate", read these: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Bit+Rate http://www.cheap56k.com/glossary/Bit+Rate.html
Reply by ●July 26, 20052005-07-26
Jon Harris wrote: ...> Are you sure they sound identical? If it is typical pop, rock, or jazz music, > the difference between the 22kHz and 44kHz sample rate should be pretty > apparent. Listen carefully to the treble, especially symbols. The higher bit > rate should be much crisper and brighter.... We would do well to inquire about Arpit's hearing. The lower rate would be fine for me. I can no longer hear the top two notes on a piano. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 26, 20052005-07-26
> Are you sure they sound identical? If it is typical pop, rock, or jazz music, > the difference between the 22kHz and 44kHz sample rate should be pretty > apparent. Listen carefully to the treble, especially symbols. The higher bit > rate should be much crisper and brighter.Assuming that it is the upper 22kHz which has been thrown away ;-)
Reply by ●July 26, 20052005-07-26
"Jon Harris" <jon99_harris7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%shFe.5986$vY2.3640@trnddc09...> "Arpit" <emailtoarpit@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1122308823.316048.76440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Are you sure they sound identical? If it is typical pop, rock, or jazz music, > the difference between the 22kHz and 44kHz sample rate should be pretty > apparent. Listen carefully to the treble, especially symbols.Oops, that should have been cymbals, not symbols. Unless of course the file contains communications signals (e.g. recorded from a modem) instead of music! ;-)
Reply by ●July 26, 20052005-07-26
First of all thanks guys for all the enlightenment and ofcourse keeping up with my mistakes .hey JON i did now notice the difference in the two quality of sound .Yes it is quite apparent.well i would trade quality for space.thanks all.
Reply by ●July 26, 20052005-07-26
"Arpit" <emailtoarpit@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122393047.761666.321340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> First of all thanks guys for all the enlightenment and ofcourse keeping > up with my mistakes .hey JON i did now notice the difference in the > two quality of sound .Yes it is quite apparent.well i would trade > quality for space.thanks all.After someone tells you what to listen for, it often becomes obvious, even though it may have been inaudible before!
