[Razoramus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheisticFreedom ^ both of you need to to chill for a sec, but he has a point; it's not that hard to test a single file....

i never said i wasn't going to try it out myself, didn't know it was wrong to get opinions on a public forum...

 

[TheMarchingMule]

lol and this is exactly what you get; opinions!

Ah, the irony of this now...

 

[Cjattwood]

Jesse suggested a very valid opinion; everyones ears are different, so take a piece of music that is very familiar to you, and listen to it both in 320kbps MP3 and 128kbps AAC.

 

[ejoy]

If you listen it through your ipod directly with a cheap headphone such as E2C or mx500, I think 128k aac is fine. Actually, even using hd600, it's very difficult for me to hear the difference between lame 192k and lame 320k using this setup. IMO, it makes little sense to use any lossless on a portable setup.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoramus i never said i wasn't going to try it out myself, didn't know it was wrong to get opinions on a public forum...

My opinion is that Jesse is right, and the best way to get an answer to your question is to test for yourself. Transcoding from one format to another will add artifacts that can cause the transcoded file to sound worse than a file that is encoded directly to that bitrate. Will you be sensitive to those artifacts? Is the trade off between reduced quality and portability worthwhile to you? Only you can answer that question, so no matter what opinions you solicit here, you're still going to need to do the test.

 

[depaulhifi]

If you ask me, 128k AAC is more than adequate for a portable player. I have ripped several CD's into both Apple Lossless and 128k AAC and I can't hear the difference. Don't think there is anything wrong with your ears, just revel in having more music to pick from on the go.

 

[Razoramus]

to those that responded in regards to jesse_w, if you have read my posts thoroughly, you would have noticed that before jesse_w ever entered this thread, i had already planned to test it myself, therefore what jesse_w said was meaningless since i already had the idea and plans to do it, please thoroughly read a thread before you post anything

everyone else that gave your opinions, thank you, they are appreciated

 

[enzoferrari650]

I think what jesse and the others are trying to say is that asking for opinions is useless to your decision on whether or not to encode in AAC 128 since everyone's ears are different.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

^ Exactly. Razoramus, you need to chill (again); you seem to be the 'follower' type in society; following what the majority of the people suggest. Be yourself and have a listen to different bitrates. Some can't tell between 192 and 320; others can't tell between 320 and Lossless.

It's all up to your ears and ur equipment in the end.

 

[Razoramus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheisticFreedom ^ Exactly. Razoramus, you need to chill (again); you seem to be the 'follower' type in society; following what the majority of the people suggest. Be yourself and have a listen to different bitrates. Some can't tell between 192 and 320; others can't tell between 320 and Lossless. It's all up to your ears and ur equipment in the end.

why would i try them out myself or even have that idea if i were to only follow? that's just really bad logic, as i said over and over again, i wanted OPINIONS, if YOU can't chill out and face the facts of what i was asking about, then DON'T get in the thread, you seem to be the type that likes to assume things and never admit they're wrong, please don't reply again in this thread, thanks

 

[Just Josh]

Wow. Strange thread. Anyway, I personally find 128 AAC VBR fine for my portable use. At home though I choose cd's if i'm not feelin lazy.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoramus to those that responded in regards to jesse_w, if you have read my posts thoroughly, you would have noticed that before jesse_w ever entered this thread, i had already planned to test it myself

... which you could have done by now rather than wasting your time berating people for offering a very valid opinion.

 

[Azure]

I thought that he was asking for everybody else's opinions because he wants to know if that quality is good enough for higher quality gear (Since he has relatively low-fi gear, I think it's quite legitimate for him to ask if 128kbps AAC is good enough). I remember asking about something similar a while back and I got some similar responses about being just asking me why I don't just test the songs out myself (Obviously because I don't have the gear and I need the opinions of people that do have mid to hi-fi gear). I only have the A500s and SR-80s and I find that 128kbps AAC is perfectly fine. Don't listen to those people that seem to preach that 320 to lossless is the only way to go. For headphones like the A500s and SR-80s, 128kbps is perfectly fine. Don't worry about it.

 

[immtbiker]

Even if you have headphones that are in the lower price ranges, a higher bitrate will give you a fuller, less 2 dimensional reproduction.

Please play nice and stop the personal attacks. If 128 makes you happy then that's what's important. If you are looking for a higher quality sound, you need to go to a higher bitrate There is no reason to get personal. No matter how you look at it, it's a matter of opinion. If you want to fight, go to a wrestling forum.

 

[Azure]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker Even if you have headphones that are in the lower price ranges, a higher bitrate will give you a fuller, less 2 dimensional reproduction.

But that's if you can actually notice the quality difference at that level

. I don't think most of the people who ask these questions about bit rates listen quite as attentively as some members on these boards, and I strongly doubt that they'd notice a fuller, less 2 dimensional sound with a higher bitrate (Unless the lower quality file was a poor rip or something; I honestly have an INCREDIBLY hard time discerning differences between 128/192kbps rips of FLAC rips with my A500s/SR-80s). I just think that some of the people here just over-emphasize the need for songs to be really high quality (320kbps to lossless).