EFN
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Posts
- 3,034
- Likes
- 21
With zune I find audio bliss in LAME VBR (-b 160 -m s -V 0 -B 320) and 192Kbps WMA
Originally Posted by budx3385 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference in storage space needed for WAV files over 320 vbr encoded files is minimal - as I recall, varying between 10 and 50%. That means there's really very little impact on the number of files you are able to listen to during travel if you have a 60GB hard drive. So, I recommend using lossless WAV files. And to be completely honest, I still prefer vintage pcdps to any DAP I've heard for SQ. IMHO, of course. |
Originally Posted by Altoids /img/forum/go_quote.gif It looks like the Wiki hasn't caught up to the forums yet. |
Originally Posted by werdwerdus /img/forum/go_quote.gif WAV files are going to take up about 4.5 times more space (450%) than a 320kbps mp3 file, not 10-50% more. WAV is constant bitrate 1411kbps. You must have been talking about compressed lossless such as FLAC which will average usually between 650ish and 1000ish kbps, which is around 100% to about 300% more space than the mp3. |
Originally Posted by calyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really do not understand people spending lots of money for hardware, earphones, amphs just to listen to 320 vbr mp3's or alikes especially if tjis is jazz or classical music what is in question. Lossless is the way. |
Originally Posted by calyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really do not understand people spending lots of money for hardware, earphones, amphs just to listen to 320 vbr mp3's or alikes especially if tjis is jazz or classical music what is in question. Lossless is the way. |
Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif With zune I find audio bliss in LAME VBR (-b 160 -m s -V 0 -B 320) and 192Kbps WMA |
Originally Posted by calyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a difference. At least to me. Considering the music types I stated. That is my point. |
Originally Posted by Joshatdot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Won't your LAME bitflags conflict with each other? The -V0 over rights all other bit settings (-b 160 -B 320). So what LAME will do is encode with -V0 -m s. |
Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you think you can hear a difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3, that's fine, and you can certainly use lossless to your heart's content. But your initial post made a broader statement about people who use expensive gear to play MP3s, and frankly, those types of posts get very tiresome. Very few people can hear the difference between 320kbps MP3s and lossless. And even those who can hear the difference often choose to use lossy codecs for portable use, because the difference in sound is so small that it does not justify the difference in file size. There is nothing wrong with that. |
Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif I support this argument. I was a lossless junkie too until I realized that a properly encoded LAME VBR is practically on par with my FLAC source when played on my Rio Karmas and my previous Rockbox iPods. |
Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif And yet another person who has seen the light. |
Originally Posted by x_fiddle /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think there are just some people out there that even if they can't tell the difference between high quality lossy and lossless they still chose the later. I guess they can't bear the idea that they might loose something from the original recording (even if its not noticeable). |