[Tone Def]

Lame -V2 and I archive in flac.

 

[epithetless]

It's LAME -V 2 --vbr-new for me.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's LAME -V 2 --vbr-new for me.

If you're using the most recent release of LAME (3.98), you don't need the --vbr-new switch.

I use -V 5.

 

[channum]

Archive in FLAC, encode to Nero AAC Q 0.5 for playback.

 

[r@mside]

Archive in FLAC and encode to DAP at Lame V0.

 

[NiceCans]

at home it's FLAC

on my portables or for streaming it is LAME -v0

 

[| Scorpio |]

I use VBR from the LAME V 0 setting, so it's generally around 250 kbps.

 

[epithetless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're using the most recent release of LAME (3.98), you don't need the --vbr-new switch. I use -V 5.

I wasn't aware of that; thanks for the info. I use Hydrogenaudio's currently recommended version, 3.97, however. Any idea why they haven't bumped their recommendation up to 3.98? The wiki has been updated since the 3.98 release, and it acknowledges 3.98 as the latest stable build...but no change in recommendation thus far.


EDIT: Nevermind, I did some reading and figured it out. In essence, 3.98 needs to go through the formality of public listening tests to verify that it is indeed a general improvement over 3.97 and features no glaring regressions. The fact that it has been heavily tested throughout its many beta stages, though, provides every indication that it's the superior version. Guess I should get to updating...

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wasn't aware of that; thanks for the info. I use Hydrogenaudio's currently recommended version, 3.97, however. Any idea why they haven't bumped their recommendation up to 3.98? The wiki has been updated since the 3.98 release, and it acknowledges 3.98 as the latest stable build...but no change in recommendation thus far.

Probably because nobody have performed a listening test with the 3.98 yet.
It need to earn reputation as the recommended version. It don't automatically get one when a new version is put out..

 

[LnxPrgr3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: Nevermind, I did some reading and figured it out. In essence, 3.98 needs to go through the formality of public listening tests to verify that it is indeed a general improvement over 3.97 and features no glaring regressions. The fact that it has been heavily tested throughout its many beta stages, though, provides every indication that it's the superior version. Guess I should get to updating...

3.96 actually bit me. In a very quiet part on one song, it started producing loud clicks. It would actually do this with a very quiet tone embedded in very quiet white noise too.

 

[Spiritboxer]

I recently switched from 320kbps aac to apple lossless. Don't know if there's a noticible difference yet though I've been told in the past there isn't one.......

 

[Al4x]

always 200+ kbps vbr mp3 no apple formats, brands etc due to compatibility, have a fair few 192+ cbrs tho

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritboxer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recently switched from 320kbps aac to apple lossless. Don't know if there's a noticible difference yet though I've been told in the past there isn't one.......

There may be no audible difference, but there is a digital difference

even if you cannot hear the improvement the Lossless is as an archival quality copy while the other, well . . . has losses

 

[Arjisme]

Ogg Vorbis q6 here.

 

[V3lier]

*tisk tisk* I would imagine at head-fi you guys would only have lossless. I'm ashamed lol. I don't know but I only got 320kb because I don't want to get the FreQShow and get annoyed by a bad source :|.