[blessingx]

Jose Perez, out of curiousity, why would you use an approximate average 500 kbps lossy, when lossless would only take you to an average of a bit more (well likely add a third to the file size)?

 

[Bosk]

EAC → alt-preset standard

 

[rnd]

I started out at 160 AAC, then 192, now 224 or 256 AAC. 256 mostly.

 

[Jose Perez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Jose Perez, out of curiousity, why would you use an approximate average 500 kbps lossy, when lossless would only take you to an average of a bit more (well likely add a third to the file size)?

Basically if I accidentally send a 10.0 .ogg file to my DAP it will still play it but the same can't be said for a LAME file Also the conversion from 10.0 to 7.0 is a lot faster than from LAME to .ogg

The only other reason is that when listening to my portable rig I don't honestly expect perfect reproduction. I'm usually listening in a computer lab or while walking to work and the ambient noise kills off any subtle nuance that may be gained from a higher bitrate compression. And when listening at home I drop in the actual CD into my system (which is totally lossless

) and hit play instead of using the PC as a source. I own the CD for EVERY song I have on my PC, which is rare in this day of file sharing.

 

[Krishna]

Rock, etc

lame alt-preset extreme

Classical, Jazz

lame alt-preset-insane

 

[kugino]

for archiving/desktop: apple lossless
ipod: LAME preset extreme for most recordings, preset insane for classical/jazz

 

[ipoddy]

AAC will always sound better than MP3 using the same bite rate.

128AAC will be the sound equivilent as 160MP3.

I use 192 AAC. That seems to be the point I can hear no difference with my equipment.

Jim

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ipoddy AAC will always sound better than MP3 using the same bite rate. Jim

that's certainly debatable...depends on which encoder you are using, too.

 

[Jam_Master_J]

Popular choices for me:
FLAC(for backup on PC and some songs on Karma)
224-320 kb/s Vorbis
224 kb/s average VBR mp3

 

[ipoddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino that's certainly debatable....

Everything is.

But the general concensus is AAC will beat MP3 at the same bit rate. Here's one example of comparisons:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m....mpression.html

There are others that did comparisons with the same type of results.

Jim

 

[erikzen]

lame alt preset standard. I tried extreme and insane and didn't notice much difference, if any, on my portable.

 

[donunus]

try wma 192 with media player 9 and up. the detail is better than lames alt preset standard even with a slightly smaller filesize

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ipoddy AAC will always sound better than MP3 using the same bite rate. 128AAC will be the sound equivalent as 160MP3.

I would be careful with this generality. Is it usually true AAC sounds better? Yeah. However when you don't clarify encoders or CBR v. VBR, but do that 128 kbps equals 160, the accuracy starts to breakdown quickly.

A semi-recent test (which newer iTunes/QT AAC encoder dropped and newer LAME MP3 rose from the previous test), with a decent amount of clout in the encoding world, can be seen here- http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html

 

[judgmentday]

I do EAC with LAME 3.96.1 @256kb and use WinAmp 5.05 on my computer. It sounds very decent.

 

[crazychimp132]

I really think wma is awful. One reason some people seem to think it sounds better than mp3 is that it actually raises the volume level when it encodes. so of course quieter, often high details seem more apparent-- they're being played more loudly!