[davidr2287]

which one would you recommend i use? Is 256vbr consider better than 320 cbr?

 

[carlineng]

It all depends on how golden your ear is. Run an AB/X test with 192 vbr vs. FLAC and see if you can tell the difference between the two. If you can't, then go with 192 VBR. If you can, then go with 320.

 

[Bizzel]

If you have the space, go with 320 or even lossless and you won't need to worry if you can hear the difference between it and the original.

 

[MaZa]

320 is better quality. For best quality vs. space saving, go for 256kbps or 225kbps VBR with max spikes in 320kbps and lowest quality spikes as low as possible, like 128 or 112kbps. (this is for silence and non-demanding parts of the music to save space for quality to part truly needing them) 192vbr isnt worth it IMO.

This is from quality standpoint, if you can tell the difference, that is another story which only you can tell.

 

[krmathis]

Since you ask you are probably not restricted by storage space. In that case go for the 320Kbps CBR MP3, and its clearly higher quality than the ~192 VBR one.

Or drop MP3 for a lossless codec...

 

[gkl]

or just use LAME encoder with V2 or V0 presets.

 

[RugerRell]

I think its hard too tell the difference after 192 bitrate, but anything below that is going to sound bad.

 

[progo]

320 cbr has an average bitrate of 320 kbps.
192 vbr has an averaga of 192 kbps. A totally different matter is that can one hear the difference.

 

[jaduffy007]

cuz it sounds WAY better than mp3..and the files are generally smaller too.

EXAMPLE: to my ears.... 192aac is better sounding than 320mp3.

 

[kipman725]

it depends on the track... the VBR encoder will drop the bit rate right down for things like drum hits and silent pasages and put it up for things like strings. So if you have a track with lots of silent pasages or solo voice or piano solo's then it will probobly sound the same. However if you have an orchestral peice of music then it will sound worse.

 

[Tarkovsky]

Go for lossless. Your ears will learn the difference, especially if you're young and external drives are so cheap these days, and any upgrade you ever make to your kit will be held back by what you could have done for free. Even a 250GB is going to cover you for about a month's worth of lossless.

 

[weste47]

Ive been using the 256kbps AAC setting on itunes with VBR turned on. It sounds reallly good.

 

[mdarnton]

I can't really hear the difference among the higher rates, so I do everything at 320 on the theory that it really doesn't take much more space, but if I do get better ears at some point in the future, I won't have to re-rip everything. Space is cheap; time is money.

 

[Tarkovsky]

Use ALAC. You will eventually recognize the compression. External hard disks are cheap and massive these days. If you ever plan on upgrading your gear then you've already severely limited yourself. If you've paid for the music then you might as well get as much out of it as possible.

 

[tjumper78]

it's not always about the bitrates. the encoder makes a huge difference.
i'll take lame encoded 192kbps over 320kbps that was encoded by crappy ones like fhg, without any hesitation.

i recommend V0 (pretty much the same as 320kbps but smaller in size). i also recommend V2 if your rig is not any decent.