Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Another MP3 Encoding Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another MP3 Encoding Question

post #1 of 6
12/9/03 at 1:01am
Thread Starter 
I'll be getting a Rio Karma, and I've started ripping and encoding CDs in anticipation. My initial idea was that I'd use it more or less exclusively for on-the-go listening with my Ety ER6s fed straight from the Karma. I've been encoding in Lame --alt preset extreme, which is probably more than adequate for portable use. (I rejected vorbis b/c it reduces battery charge life and lossless formats b/c of inadequate capacity.)

I'm now thinking that I may want to use the Karma as the source for a system for stationary listening that I'll put together around, perhaps, Senn 600s or 580s and an appropriate amp. I'm beginning to wonder whether ape is going to be adequate, but I can't just compare different encoding options because I don't have that system yet.

So, anyone have any advice on this? If it matters, most of my listening is to small-scale acoustic music (chamber music and jazz), but with some bigger-scale classical, opera, and even some loud rock/punk/grunge thrown in from time to time.
Reply
post #2 of 6
12/9/03 at 1:41am
Welcome to Head-Fi.

I think properly encoded lossy is much better than most give credit, but the area where I've noticed the biggest difference between it and lossless or uncompressed is... you guessed it... acoustic. Why not try a few pieces on your computer in FLAC and -apx and see if the difference is noticeable for you? For a lot of pop/rock I'd say no, but for specific pieces definitely. Actually the simpler pieces are where I notice the subtle differences. You may get a feel for which is important to you and fill the Karma with both FLAC and LAME.

And be careful. "ape" can mean ".ape" (the lossless Monkey's Audio) or "--alt-preset extreme". Usually it's good to use "-ape", "apx" or "-apx".
Reply
post #3 of 6
12/9/03 at 4:17am
It would be a very good idea to encode everything in FLAC using a drive that supports C2 error detection/correction and EAC. Once that is done you can then batch process the FLAC files to get an archive of MP3 files. Why create FLAC then? Because it's lossless. From FLAC you can reconstitute .WAV and from there you can get any other format you like, so you only have to put all your CDs through your drive once. Lame processes FLAC fine. The C2 correction makes sure you get everything encoded right, My DVR-105 will read at 14x every time but leaves silent pauses when it encounters errors, my old Plextor 24X CD burner is slow but reads everything, or lets me know. (I just had to re-polish Mule Variations. Thanks, Micro Mesh.)

One day when you buy an awesome head unit that can play FLAC at CD quality off your hard drive you'll be happy you don't have to do it all again.
Reply
post #4 of 6
12/9/03 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally posted by blessingx
I think properly encoded lossy is much better than most give credit, but the area where I've noticed the biggest difference between it and lossless or uncompressed is... you guessed it... acoustic.
Seconded wholly. Acoustic non-electronic music benefits most from lossless compression. That said, I bet --alt-preset extreme will do you just fine... though you'll want to upgrade your setup later.

- Chris
Reply
post #5 of 6
12/9/03 at 8:14am
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any differences between --preset standard and --preset extreme on a Karma, or other mp3 playback devices for that matter. Blind testing will help you determine this. I can hear the difference between aps and wav, but only sometimes, and to hear it on the fly would be nearly miraculous. However, I can't pick out the difference between apx and aps ever, just as an example. Do a google search for ff123 to find a some test samples. If you can't hear the difference, what's the point of a higher bitrate encoding?
Reply
post #6 of 6
12/9/03 at 9:19am
I have taken the same route as you are contemplating: LAME apx on a HD player and on my computer as my primary sources, both for portable and stationary listening.

Based on casual comparisons with CDs played in a PCDP, I feel I'm losing a little bit of air and some of the high end sheen, but that the music is still enjoyable. If I were accustomed to a high-end source, I'm sure the difference would be more noticeable.

Synergy is also important. With some amp & headphone combinations I've also noted some high-end graininess or harshness, which I've also attributed to the encoding, although I've never done the comparisons necessary to isolate the cause.

Nonetheless, the convenience of having my entire collection at my fingertips has led me to ignore these perceived shortcomings. The music is enjoyable, and probably better than what 95% of the listening public experiences. That's good enough for me, but YMMV.

I also support the idea of keeping the original WAVs or losslessly compressed copies of the WAVs on your computer for future use. I bought a 120 GB drive for that purpose. I've got about 150 CDs on it, and haven't yet hit the point where I need to compresse to APE or FLAC. To me, it's insurance against having to go through the whole ripping process again when I decide to use a different encoder, or to play through a networked media player, or whatever else comes along.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Another MP3 Encoding Question