[JamesL]

256 mp3's vs 320 kbps mp3s vs lossless.

I download my music from Amazon's service, which are all ripped at 256 kbps.
Considering I playback on Swans M10's and Denon d1000's, is it a significant enough a difference to consider purchasing the CD's and rip them myself?

I will be upgrading my headphone setup probably to something like a dt880 + little dot II+ combo in the future, but I don't have what you'd call 'experienced' ears.

 

[omegaman]

Best bet is to rip a tune from your favourite CD in lossless and 256. play them one after another and see if you can tell the difference. If you can't the keep buying from amazon.

Personally I always buy the CD. You can rip to what level you want and you always have it for upgrading later.

 

[paulllaser]

x2

 

[LordofDoom]

It depends on the music. A lot of the "remastered" CDs I have of classic rock sounds substantially cleaner and crisper on FLAC than it does on any MP3 setting, and I know someone was talking about this yesterday and said that he can hear certain background noises missing in Pink Floyd in MP3 (vs FLAC).

 

[brainsalad]

I rip to Flac for home and 320 MP3 for portable. IMO, rip and use as highest HQ as possible. No regrets later.

 

[That dude]

1st: Get CDs, not download.
2nd: Try both lossless and lossy formats. (From same source)
3rd: Save up for a bigger hard-drive and more CDs.

 

[noseallinit]

buy the CD!

 

[JamesL]

Sorry - let me clarify a little more on the 'situation' at hand.
I know this is head-fi, but theres a concept called a "budget" I also have to keep in mind.

I have $100 headphones, and want to spend about $200 more on songs for the time being... = 200 selected songs at 256kbps, or about 10-15 cd albums, of which I only really like half of the songs.

If you were in this position, would you still choose the 256kbps mp3's over the CD's?

I'm currently in the state of "converting" -
My library is currently split, between about 50 songs I ripped from CD's at 192kbps I had back at home years ago, about 30 more from amazon, streaming from youtube, streaming the 'previews' from amazon, and a whole lot of the... 192kbps 'torrented' stuff, listening through $10 sony headphones and $30 logitech speakers.
Now, I'm not saying the CD's are a bad idea - they'll most likely last me a lifetime if I store them well, and are a good investment.. but will take this "converting" process a whole lot longer.

 

[omegaman]

I would rather have the 10-15 CD's. If you buy lossy formats, when you upgrade your kit you will be wondering what SQ you are missing out on.

 

[davidr2287]

If the song you like is the only one you like from the artists cd then i would say to buy it off amazon. If a couple of songs are from the same cd I would just buy the cd.

 

[Apocalypsee]

256kbps is transparent to me, but I keep them in WAV or FLAC. But mostly downloaded ones are poorly ripped, but I don't know about Amazon one. Even the 320kbps one sounds rather poor if its not properly rip, hissing, gaps, clicks etc. ruining the music

I buy all the CD I need first before upgrading my other stuff, if I like more than 4 tracks on the CD I'll buy it

 

[trains are bad]

Unless the files were poorly encoded, you will probably not be able to tell a SQ difference between them and the CD. 256kbps with a decent encoder is practically equivalent to lossless, as far as SQ.

But having a lossless collection is much better because you can later transcode to whatever you want. IMO, it's folly to actually PAY for lossless music

 

[brainsalad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unless the files were poorly encoded, you will probably not be able to tell a SQ difference between them and the CD. 256kbps with a decent encoder is practically equivalent to lossless, as far as SQ. But having a lossless collection is much better because you can later transcode to whatever you want.

If you perceive that 256 = lossless, it must be bliss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry - let me clarify a little more on the 'situation' at hand. I know this is head-fi, but theres a concept called a "budget" I also have to keep in mind.

Buy used on Amazon. I very rarely spend more than $3-$6 for a CD plus $2.99 shipping ends up being very in-expensive.

But I don't follow popular music which tends to only offer 1 or 2 desireable songs on a CD. I like buying the CD to get the overall tone of the artist and the phase he is in his career.

 

[Operandi]

I would argue that the encoder has more to do with quality than the bit rate. A good LAME V2 or V0 encoded MP3 should be transparent to just about everyone on most material on even the best equipment.

I would suggest you buy a CD of one of your favorite albums and do some comparing to an Amazon download vs. a lossless rip vs. a LAME V0 rip.

For myself all my music is encoded in LAME V0 (encoded myself) or V2 (from torrents).

 

[weste47]

when buying from amazon, usually you can get a cd for even cheaper than the cost of the mp3 download. If it's used or fairly new or even sometimes brand new you can get them for around $5 dollars if it's a year or so old.