Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Best Encoded Audio?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Encoded Audio? - Page 3

post #31 of 50
With zune I find audio bliss in LAME VBR (-b 160 -m s -V 0 -B 320) and 192Kbps WMA
post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by budx3385 View Post
The difference in storage space needed for WAV files over 320 vbr encoded files is minimal - as I recall, varying between 10 and 50%. That means there's really very little impact on the number of files you are able to listen to during travel if you have a 60GB hard drive.

So, I recommend using lossless WAV files. And to be completely honest, I still prefer vintage pcdps to any DAP I've heard for SQ.

IMHO, of course.
WAV files are going to take up about 4.5 times more space (450%) than a 320kbps mp3 file, not 10-50% more. WAV is constant bitrate 1411kbps. You must have been talking about compressed lossless such as FLAC which will average usually between 650ish and 1000ish kbps, which is around 100% to about 300% more space than the mp3.
post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altoids View Post
It looks like the Wiki hasn't caught up to the forums yet.
It's not recommended since it's still alpha. Most people on HA do indeed agree that the sound is better since 3.98a3+. ( compared with 3.97)
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by werdwerdus View Post
WAV files are going to take up about 4.5 times more space (450%) than a 320kbps mp3 file, not 10-50% more. WAV is constant bitrate 1411kbps. You must have been talking about compressed lossless such as FLAC which will average usually between 650ish and 1000ish kbps, which is around 100% to about 300% more space than the mp3.

He must have been talking about KLS format, he has a Kenwood HD30GA9 I want a GB9 !

I really do not understand people spending lots of money for hardware, earphones, amphs just to listen to 320 vbr mp3's or alikes especially if tjis is jazz or classical music what is in question.

Lossless is the way.
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by calyx View Post
I really do not understand people spending lots of money for hardware, earphones, amphs just to listen to 320 vbr mp3's or alikes especially if tjis is jazz or classical music what is in question.

Lossless is the way.
If it's transparent to your ears I would recommend to use lossy format on a portable device though. It saves space and your battery will last longer. For as far as I know V0 is transparent for most people. V2 is transparent for my ears on my portable. Using FLAC on a portable would be a waste in my opinion.
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by calyx View Post
I really do not understand people spending lots of money for hardware, earphones, amphs just to listen to 320 vbr mp3's or alikes especially if tjis is jazz or classical music what is in question.

Lossless is the way.
And I really do not understand people using lossless on a portable player if there is no audible difference between lossless and a compressed file.
post #37 of 50
There is a difference. At least to me. Considering the music types I stated. That is my point.
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFN View Post
With zune I find audio bliss in LAME VBR (-b 160 -m s -V 0 -B 320) and 192Kbps WMA
Won't your LAME bitflags conflict with each other? The -V0 over rights all other bit settings (-b 160 -B 320). So what LAME will do is encode with -V0 -m s.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by calyx View Post
There is a difference. At least to me. Considering the music types I stated. That is my point.
If you think you can hear a difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3, that's fine, and you can certainly use lossless to your heart's content. But your initial post made a broader statement about people who use expensive gear to play MP3s, and frankly, those types of posts get very tiresome. Very few people can hear the difference between 320kbps MP3s and lossless. And even those who can hear the difference often choose to use lossy codecs for portable use, because the difference in sound is so small that it does not justify the difference in file size. There is nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshatdot View Post
Won't your LAME bitflags conflict with each other? The -V0 over rights all other bit settings (-b 160 -B 320). So what LAME will do is encode with -V0 -m s.
The -B parameter won't have any effect, because -V 0 will use a maximum bitrate of 320kbps anyway. I would have to double check this to be sure, but I believe that the -b 160 parameter will override the preset. However, this is generally not recommended at Hydrogen Audio.
post #40 of 50
To the original poster, if you find yourself wanting to re-rip your CDs based on any of this, I'd recommend ripping to your favorite lossless encoding first.

Then transcode that to whatever lossy flavor of the month floats your boat, for portable devices. And then the next time you want to switch lossy formats (and there will be a next time), the second transcode is simple.
post #41 of 50
here's the LAME 3.97 man page: http://hpux.connect.org.uk/hppd/hpux...-3.97/man.html

It looks like -b and -B will constrain the VBR.
Anyone ever play with -q?

Also, does anyone else listen to streaming radio and have any suggestions for getting the best content?
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
If you think you can hear a difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3, that's fine, and you can certainly use lossless to your heart's content. But your initial post made a broader statement about people who use expensive gear to play MP3s, and frankly, those types of posts get very tiresome. Very few people can hear the difference between 320kbps MP3s and lossless. And even those who can hear the difference often choose to use lossy codecs for portable use, because the difference in sound is so small that it does not justify the difference in file size. There is nothing wrong with that.
I support this argument. I was a lossless junkie too until I realized that a properly encoded LAME VBR is practically on par with my FLAC source when played on my Rio Karmas and my previous Rockbox iPods.
post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFN View Post
I support this argument. I was a lossless junkie too until I realized that a properly encoded LAME VBR is practically on par with my FLAC source when played on my Rio Karmas and my previous Rockbox iPods.
And yet another person who has seen the light.
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnOYiN View Post
And yet another person who has seen the light.
I think there are just some people out there that even if they can't tell the difference between high quality lossy and lossless they still chose the later. I guess they can't bear the idea that they might loose something from the original recording (even if its not noticeable).
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by x_fiddle View Post
I think there are just some people out there that even if they can't tell the difference between high quality lossy and lossless they still chose the later. I guess they can't bear the idea that they might loose something from the original recording (even if its not noticeable).
Heh, you think? Considering the number of folks here that will claim to hear a difference between lossless and WAV, I'm shocked this is a surprise to anyone. :-)

Lossless is handy so that re-encoding is easy, though. I use lossless on my desktop, and 128k AAC on my shuffle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Best Encoded Audio?