[Mr_Junesequa]

Hi,

I am new here and very impressed. I have been in the digital music and entertainment business for a while. I thought I new a fair amount about music until I came on the head hifi forum, the appreciation of music and the knowledge of users on this forum astounds me.

I have read some threads on the forum regarding the best lossy encoded music format but am still not clear on it. I only have a 30gb ipod and besides some flac files I want to fill the ipod with some low size lossy files, but I dont know which files would be best..I know there are Sq,buffer,power consumption, HD issues..

So I propose a simple thread post

1. Your preferred lossy encoded music format
2. your reason

Your help would be most appreciated.

 

[Mr_Junesequa]

320 kbps LAME encoded mp3


I make these files and they sound great, but I am not sure if they are the best lossy encoded format.

 

[tcpoint]

Ogg Vorbis sounds pretty good. A lot better than mp3 at the same bitrate.

 

[tcpoint]

Unfortunately, not a lot of hardware players support the Ogg Vorbis format.

 

[threEchelon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcpoint /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfortunately, not a lot of hardware players support the Ogg Vorbis format.

That's what Rockbox is for.

 

[TzeYang]

I go flac all the way. On some tracks, flacs sounded much better and less fatigue. Besides than that, rockbox doesnt handle MP3 that well, however it plays FLACs smoothly. It freezes oftenly when i play mp3 files. In addition, i'm also a lazy guy, i don't really like the idea of converting my flacs to lossy for portable devices.

 

[jewman]

1. 320 Lame VBR mp3
2. I wanted mp3 (pretty much the lossy standard), high quality, space saving (VBR) for my computer/iRiver.

PS- Check out Rockbox, which would allow you to play your flac files right on your iPod, as well as to customize your ipod with while-playing-screens, and it includes games, as well as allows you to play gameboy roms.

 

[Febs]

1. LAME 3.97 -V5
2. I prefer MP3 for compatibility reasons, and I use the -V5 setting because I have confirmed through extensive listening tests that it is transparent to me.

 

[EnOYiN]

1. LAME -v2
2. The exact same reason as Febs just posted.

Edit: that's 3.97 and --vbr new

 

[Altoids]

Ogg doesn't sound that much different from mp3 at high bitrates. Don't worry if your player doesn't support it outright. If I were you, I'd archive everything in FLAC or Wavpack and compress them with lame 3.98. It's a beta, but it's a very stable beta and the sonic improvements are significant over 3.97 (better low-end, mid-range -- vocals are very nice -- and separation).

 

[Digitalbath3737]

LAME -V2

1) Small file size
2) Transparent to lossless on my rig (abxed)
3) Better Battery life
4) Compatibility with almost every player (except early Sonys)

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altoids /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a beta, but it's a very stable beta and the sonic improvements are significant over 3.97 (better low-end, mid-range -- vocals are very nice -- and separation).

LAME 3.98 is still in alpha.

 

[Joshatdot]

LAME -V2 --vbr-new, and if I need to cram more space, -V4 --vbr-new.

 

[bloodandsoil]

What kbps is LAME v5? Is it 320kbps?

 

[Altoids]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif LAME 3.98 is still in alpha.

So it is. Still, I recommend it, as do the folks over at Hydrogenaudio. Try it side by side with 3.97 and see the difference.