[vranswer]

Every time I've loaded lossy files of any kind onto iPod I've had the same experience...I either hear (or think I hear) an artifact or some noticeable glare at higher volume levels. Once again and forever, the ABX gang will scream that you must do the blind comparison to really tell if you can hear the difference.

But I simply say "why?". With lossless files there is no further debate, nor any need for ABX or XYZ or pondering about if this album might sound better. You have the album bit for bit, end of discussion. With an 80 GB iPod you can load a closet full of CDs lossless. Battery life is probably 7-8 hours on my 30 GB 5G iPod which is plenty between charges.

Lossless is the future IMO, as memory capacities increase in these players. Won't be long before 16-32 GB flash players become the norm and most people will just load 'em up with these 'zipped' music files and go.

 

[Sir Nobax]

If you dont mind the lower battery life (about 50% vs ~192kbps) and prefer quality above quantity, lossless would be my recommendment too, nothing can be worse then the tought that a lossy file 'deletes' data.

. . . it doesnt sound better then 320kbps files though, it just gives a better feeling.

 

[nfusion770]

I have all my files stored in ALAC on a server. For my ipods, however, I have copies at 256 aac vbr. I recently downgraded from 320 aac because I could not tell the difference between the 2 bitrates, and once you get to the 50gb range, the space savings of 256vbr results in 5gb or 6gb difference.

If you can, I would rip at ALAC and make copies at whatever bitrate is ideal for your ears. Then you can always go lossless if you ever wish to.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once again and forever, the ABX gang will scream that you must do the blind comparison to really tell if you can hear the difference.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with these meritless attacks and misrepresentations of the advice that the "ABX gang" gives.

 

[terriblepaulz]

I switched from lossless to 320 on all but a few tracks because of battery life. I did a lot of testing and could only detect a difference (or convince myself that I heard a difference

) in a few well recorded jazz tracks. I don't know if there is a big difference in battery drain between 256 and 320, but I suspect it's not as dramatic as between lossless and 320. I think that the quality difference in encoders decreases with modern compressed recordings.

If your music is all rock/pop/metal/hip-hop of recent vintage, then the differences between 256 and 320 may be negligible. Of course nothing prevents you from encoding different tracks at different rates, so that is something to consider.

 

[vo328]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandrake /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you all think of this from Itunes support pages? Seems like VBR is implemented a bit differently than many appear to think.... "When the Use Variable Bit Rate Encoding option is enabled in the MP3 Encoder preferences, iTunes automatically raises and lowers the compression bit rate in order to keep a consistent level of quality. For example, if there is a point in the source music that contains a wider range of frequencies, iTunes increases the bit rate. Conversely, if there is a point that contains a narrower range of frequencies, the bit rate is decreased. iTunes does not allow the bit rate to go lower than the Bit Rate settings you've chosen." http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60794 So, does this mean that VBR can only increase file size? I just experimented w/Itunes 192 AAC VBR vs 192 AAC non VBR, and the VBR song was 5.0 megs, while the non VBR song was 4.8 megs. Interesting!

Interesting indeed! I never realized this and have been using 256 VBR for quite some time now. I am intrigued by the test you did and results achieved. Hmmm...

 

[ILikeMusic]

VBR tries to maintain the best quality-to-filesize compromise, centering around a selected 'target' bitrate. But while VBR does allocate bits more efficiently there is no guarantee that the resultant file will be either larger or smaller than an equivalent CBR file, in fact it could be either somewhat larger or somewhat smaller depending on the complexity of the material being encoded.

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Every time I've loaded lossy files of any kind onto iPod I've had the same experience...I either hear (or think I hear) an artifact or some noticeable glare at higher volume levels. Once again and forever, the ABX gang will scream that you must do the blind comparison to really tell if you can hear the difference. But I simply say "why?". With lossless files there is no further debate, nor any need for ABX or XYZ or pondering about if this album might sound better. You have the album bit for bit, end of discussion. With an 80 GB iPod you can load a closet full of CDs lossless. Battery life is probably 7-8 hours on my 30 GB 5G iPod which is plenty between charges. Lossless is the future IMO, as memory capacities increase in these players. Won't be long before 16-32 GB flash players become the norm and most people will just load 'em up with these 'zipped' music files and go.

I'm with you on this one. Right now I've got....I'm ashamed to admit this....3 databases. MP3 VBR, FLAC and Apple Lossless. Now that I've abandoned the PC format and gone with the Mac, I'm determined to go lossless but until I get a new portable, I'm still using dBpowerAMP to convert my FLAC files to MP3 VBR(192-320). Heck, I doubt I can hear a difference between the MP3 and lossless files but like you, there's no doubt a certain psychological need for me to have the "best".

That's nuts considering the source is an unamped portable isn't it?! Still, it's just the way I am and I can't help myself.

I keep telling myself that I'm going to wait on the 120 hard drives that are supposed to be coming.....soon, right? At that point, I'll ditch the MP3 and go lossless for good.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would appreciate it if you would stop with these meritless attacks and misrepresentations of the advice that the "ABX gang" gives.

Please forgive, as I most certainly should apply more care to the tone of my comments. We disagree and can leave it at that.

I just would have a bad feeling if my mechanic had three or four parts left out of the engine that he re-built for me and couldn't figure out where inside they went, but simply stated,"..see, you can't tell any difference, it runs fine".

EDIT: Hey, Ken whazzup? Glad you're as whacky as I am!

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please forgive, as I most certainly should apply more care to the tone of my comments. We disagree and can leave it at that.

These apologies start to sound hollow when you apologize and then just days later make exactly the same type of ill-informed remarks. If you want to disagree with the position of those of us who advocate ABX testing, then feel free to disagree, but please, stop making personal attacks and using inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif These apologies start to sound hollow when you apologize and then just days later make exactly the same type of ill-informed remarks. If you want to disagree with the position of those of us who advocate ABX testing, then feel free to disagree, but please, stop making personal attacks and using inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric.

<sigh>..ill-informed? Who is the attacker with rhetoric? I'm the least contentious guy I know, but get a little testy when pounded like this. At least I attempt to apologize if overboard.

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: Hey, Ken whazzup? Glad you're as whacky as I am!

Whacky? I like that better than the wife's decription......excessively anal retentive.

 

[bigshot]

You've got some serious overkill going there. I bet you can't hear the difference between 256 plain and those two. I used to use 256, but now I use 192 VBR. 99.9% of the time, that works perfect for home and mobile listening.

See ya
Steve

 

[donunus]

I will start going lossless only when ipods are at least 500gb. i use mostly v2 and v0 mp3s and deleted videos but still already have 45gbs on my ipod. Ive only had it for 2 months too. I havent even loaded classical music yet.

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've got some serious overkill going there. I bet you can't hear the difference between 256 plain and those two. I used to use 256, but now I use 192 VBR. 99.9% of the time, that works perfect for home and mobile listening. See ya Steve

Yeah, I know. I've tried to hear the difference but can't. Yet for some reason I just have the need for overkill.

I dunno....maybe I'm hoping that having golden ears is something that comes with age??