Quote: Originally Posted by nick20 FYI I have some CD's in the 1,700+ kbps the difference is HUGE! And most of my CD's are around 1,400 kbps. ALL CDs are 1411kbps. If you're ripping to an uncompressed format and seeing higher bitrates, there is something wrong with the way you...

Quote: Originally Posted by arande2 When it comes to EQ on digital portable audio devices, no I do not EQ. That's one of the reasons that I use Rockbox. Its EQ is flexible enough to allow cutting frequencies rather than boosting, and it also has a pre-cut feature that reduces...

Quote: Originally Posted by tinseljim Not using EQ makes most sense for headphones but less sense for speakers. This is because the room in which your speakers are located may have either standing waves or resonant frequencies which will distort the music naturally. The...

Quote: Originally Posted by majkel ROTFL! Less bits = higher quality. Can you decrease the quality by using more bits? Think. Do you contend that using more bits always equals an increase in sound quality?

Quote: Originally Posted by majkel -V0 doesn't even reach the 256kb/s quality level - just because of the fact of lower bitrate. LAME almost invariably uses a substantial number of 320kbps frames when it encodes at -V0.

Here's what I have at the moment: Guitars: 1967 Gibson ES330 TDC Guild X500 archtop Epiphone Emperor Epiphone Sheraton II with upgraded electronics G&L Comanche Guild D50 Basses: Robelli Doublebass Schecter C-5 1987 Fender Jazz Bass Special Fretless Fender MIM 4-string Jazz...

Love the way you go out of your way to make the point that the ad is for a gay dating service (including drawing a giant red arrow pointing to the word "gay") and then pretend that your objection is to any dating site.

Quote: Originally Posted by epithetless It's LAME -V 2 --vbr-new for me. If you're using the most recent release of LAME (3.98), you don't need the --vbr-new switch. I use -V 5.

Quote: Originally Posted by Computerpro3 Now I'm no homophobe, Then why bother starting a thread?

Quote: Originally Posted by Awah I do exactly that! I'll be listening along and I'll be...this doesn't sound very oood at all...and I'll check, it'll be a lower bit rate (lower than 200) and other times I'll be like, "This song is awesome!" and the bit rate with be low once again...

Quote: Originally Posted by majkel However, saying V0 is indistinguishable from the 320kb/s is both perceptionally (I hear it) and theoretically wrong. I know that you've claimed to be able to distinguish a LAME-encoded 320kbps MP3 from the original, but can you distinguish a V0...

Quote: Originally Posted by majkel To the OP - congrats! This is no surprise to me and it's nice to know some other people also have no problem in distnguishing the LAME 320kb/s mp3 against lossless. LAME is overrated, it's second best after FhG but for me significantly worse...

Quote: Originally Posted by jojoarmani I have also read that even 320kbps will have a noticeably better sound. With a good encoder, MP3s can be transparent (i.e., indistinguishable from the original) at bitrates far below 320kbps. You cannot assume that 320kbps MP3s will be...

Quote: Originally Posted by sahwnfras lol id take the deal. Man hes letting you get $500 for a new TV. Your TV now isnt worth $500, lol you can get a 42 samsung plasma for under a G. For the added features (did your tosh have HDMI), and better picture why not. Because it's fraud...

7/12 7/13 7/19 7/20 7/26 7/27 8/2 8/3 8/9 8/10 8/16 8/17 8/23 8/24 8/30 8/31