[riker1384]

I rip my CDs that way with Itunes. Sounds good to me on Senn HD-497, Sony EX-81, NHT SuperOnes. Am I going to regret building a library this way later on?

 

[jpelg]

I recently downgraded my mp3 rips to 128k (mp3 format). Portably, the sound difference isn't significant for me. The storage benefits are (significant), and my DAP gets better battery life & there is less wear-&-tear on the hard drive (fewer disk accesses).

 

[ZackT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg I r

I use 224 AAC as it doesn't sound any better than lossless to me on my iPod. However I can tell 128k's and wouldn't go that low to gain the small space savings.

ZT

 

[rhythmicmoose]

Depends on how good you think your ears are and whether or not you plan to upgrade your equipment.

 

[blessingx]

If I had a Shuffle I'd consider it, but with little battery savings until you hit 256 kbps (for average length songs to fill buffer) I still recommend 192 VBR AAC or 224 (no VBR option).

 

[F50GTR]

I use 128 AAC... tried 256 AAC as well as Lossless off of my ER-4P's... couldn't tell a difference!

 

[binkgle]

i use 128 vbr aac on the ipod, transcode from flac on the computer. when i get a cdp though i'll go from flac to aac on the comp, too, though, as the sb live + px100 makes it so i can't hear any difference

 

[biohazard_nz]

What do you use to transcode? are there different encoders?

 

[Just Josh]

I use 128 AAC VBR as well. For some LIVE stuff though, I use 160 VBR.
I CAN tell a difference between 128 and a CD, its just, to me 128 aac vbr sounds GOOD ENOUGH for on the go. Besides if I want lossless I'll bust out my cd player

.

 

[Connectz]

I couldn't ever imagine using 128kbps mp3's. There were times when friends used to loan me their mp3 cd's and I wouldn't take any of the songs because they were all 128kbps. Sounds too crappy to me.

But hey, the key phrase is "to me". If they sound good to you then by all means, do what you gotta do.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

128kbs sounds bad to me. I use LAME 3.97b2 -V 2 --vbr-new. I can't tell the differance between LAME and apple lossless on my iPod. There is no way i'd encode my music other than using this method. EAC and LAME 3.97b2 -V 2 --vbr-new is the only way to do it. Everything under that sounds bad and everthing above that is over kill imo.

 

[The_Duke_Of_Eli]

I used to use 64 kbps, then I made everything 128, then I jumped to the world of 192/320 .m4a/.mp3/.acc. I can't tell the difference between all of them. 192 for regular CDs, 320 for my favorite songs/cds and live recordings.

 

[riker1384]

Keep in mind I'm talking about 128k AAC which is supposed to be better than 128k mp3. For those who don't like it, what equipment does it take to tell a difference?

 

[blessingx]

Ears.

Seriously it depends a lot on music. A few times I've been enjoying music to be shocked when I found out the low bitrate (last time this happened was a Tom Waits album). There have been other times there was obvious something was wrong, and then I saw the bitrate (last time was with Lucinda Williams).

No one is claiming a Ramones disc needs to be lossless.

And of course location/environmental noise plays a big part (this is a portable forum). The obvious extension to this conversation is the large number of satellite listeners that are satisfied with the equivalent (XM and Sirius use difference codecs) of around 48 kbps AAC+. It's quite horrible with headphones or a quite area, but in your car, it's quite fine.

Also while 128 AAC should be better than most 128 MP3, 128 ABR LAME comes very close.

 

[binkgle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by biohazard_nz What do you use to transcode? are there different encoders?

i use foo_pod to transcode the flac to aac using itunesencoder