[WalkmanMan]

yes it will make a difference. it will take 3xs more space and drain battery 2xs faster.

 

[kiteki]

Yep, completely useless, now give me your vintage walkmans please.

 

[xabu]

 
Quote:

yes it will make a difference. it will take 3xs more space and drain battery 2xs faster.

So what?
 
My notebook has 500 GB SSD and I use up to 4 x 32 GB SD card in my DAP currently.
Since I' m almost never more than 8 hours away from the next power outlet, there is no problem at all.
This way I can enjoy CD or better sound when my stationary CD Player is not around

 
Well, and if one can't hear the difference between MP3 and e.g. lossless WAV/FLAC (because of one's ears, lowly interest in music or inadequate equipment)  there is subjectively no difference for one and one naturally don't have to use lossless, use mp3!
But one should bear in mind it won't be around so long anymore.
 
I would recommend lossless at least for archiving purposes though.
 
 

 

[leonsphinx]

The answer to the original question to this thread is quite simple to me:
for portable MP3 player - VBRO (unless your portable can hold 1 Terabyte of music, then, it doesn't matter)
for archiving - FLAC (to secure and preserve your files in it's purest form)
IMO, cant tell difference between FLAC, VBRO, or 320kbps MP3...unless you have bat ears

 

[xabu]

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-what-is-a-studio-master.aspx

 

[Young Spade]

Yea, unless you are going you be sitting down focusing on the music, I would stick with 320 kbs. Right now I'm in the process of converting all of my flac files to 320 because I'm using unamped se535s out of ipods.

With my amped k702s and the sflo2, I could hear a plain difference though, it is less obvious on this setup.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

Yea, unless you are going you be sitting down focusing on the music, I would stick with 320 kbs. Right now I'm in the process of converting all of my flac files to 320 because I'm using unamped se535s out of ipods.

With my amped k702s and the sflo2, I could hear a plain difference though, it is less obvious on this setup.

Why 320 and not V0?

 

[fenixdown110]

Quote:

Why 320 and not V0?

VBR's have variable bitrates that will fluxuate lower whereas 320 is constant 320 all the way through. Between 320 VBR or CBR, CBR wins. If it's between 192 VBR or CBR, VBR wins.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

VBR's have variable bitrates that will fluxuate lower whereas 320 is constant 320 all the way through. Between 320 VBR or CBR, CBR wins. If it's between 192 VBR or CBR, VBR wins.

 
I know what VBR is.

Using V0, if the music is complex enough to require 320kbps, then it will go up to 320....if not, then it will fluctuate lower. So using straight-up 320 makes no sense compared to V0.....unless you just like wasting space.

 

[cooperpwc]

Quote:

 
I know what VBR is.

Using V0, if the music is complex enough to require 320kbps, then it will go up to 320....if not, then it will fluctuate lower. So using straight-up 320 makes no sense compared to V0.....unless you just like wasting space.

Yessir.
 
(And if one uses anything but the Lame encoder for the 320kbps, the VO will likely be superior.)

 

[daveDerek]

i came across this report whereby the reviewer compares different sources, and file conversion schemes on a good stereo. the results are interesting, especially his comments about aac vs mp3 both @ 320kbps. :
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ipod/ipod.html

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

i came across this report whereby the reviewer compares different sources, and file conversion schemes on a good stereo. the results are interesting, especially his comments about aac vs mp3 both @ 320kbps. :
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ipod/ipod.html

That is an interesting read.....albeit a bit outdated.

The LAME mp3 encoder has improved greatly from what it appears might have been used there to encode to mp3, which was whatever version of iTunes was current at that time. AAC may yet be slightly better than LAME for the truly discerning ear(assuming your player will play it) but the gap has certainly narrowed considerably since June 2005.

 

[NewDuke]

daveDerek is that Gentle Giant I see on your avatar? Respect to you!

 
Almost as good as Transatlantic

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

daveDerek is that Gentle Giant I see on your avatar? Respect to you!

 
Almost as good as Transatlantic

GG - absolutely!!  and i think they are far more original and interesting than Transatlantic. to each their own

.
if you like GG there's a band called 3 Friends (with a couple of original GG members) that's keeping their music alive. i've seen them a few times now ('cause you never know when it'll end) and they are terrific.  http://www.threefriends.info/

 

[cooperpwc]

Quote:

GG - absolutely!!  and i think they are far more original and interesting than Transatlantic. to each their own

.
if you like GG there's a band called 3 Friends (with a couple of original GG members) that's keeping their music alive. i've seen them a few times now ('cause you never know when it'll end) and they are terrific.  http://www.threefriends.info/

Only one original member - guitarist Gary Green. Mortimore was drummer on the third GG album only (which makes Three Friends a good name...)
 
Okay, I get the message. I have to try to see these guys live.