[KevC]

My dad has a 512MB shuffle and I ripped classical music at 96kbps to get more albums on the little thing. I'm thinking of getting E2Cs for him, is it too much?

 

[iancraig10]

96kbs is a bit on the low side for music. I use a mimimum of 192kbs. The earphones that you are considering a very good and very sensitive so they would be fine with an mp3 player but I would consider ripping at a higher rate.

Try it. Rip just one track at different rates and see whether you can tell the difference.

Ian

 

[titaniumx3]

I would have gone slighlty higher, at 128kbps AAC. Never heard AAC, but if its anything like OGG or WMA, it should sound fairly decent at 128kbps, even with the Shure E2c.

 

[jagorev]

96 sounds poor with worse headphones than the e2c. Go 128 at minimum.

 

[J-Pak]

AAC

 

[Dark_Archon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by titaniumx3 I would have gone slighlty higher, at 128kbps AAC. Never heard AAC, but if its anything like OGG or WMA, it should sound fairly decent at 128kbps, even with the Shure E2c.

From what I've heard, AAC is worse than OGG, but better than WMA.

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevC My dad has a 512MB shuffle and I ripped classical music at 96kbps to get more albums on the little thing. I'm thinking of getting E2Cs for him, is it too much?

no quiet sure why listen to classical music with e2s. Think the er6i would be a better choice. As for space, 96 AAC is going to be ok. I mean if you are only going to be using this with e2s. Gave it a shot. Maybe put three files out there in AAC format 96 128 and 192. I am not sure what the results are going to be. Also depends in your dads hearing. My dad has hearing loss so he can't tell the difference between 128 LAME mp3 and 320 AAC on many songs. So really just depends.

Generally AAC is alittle less then double the compression of LAME Mp3.
96 AAC = close to 192 LAME MP3

 

[Anjay]

Not to change the subject too much, but how does AAC compare to MP3? I assumed it was a lower quality since it was so much smaller.. Enlighten me please

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anjay Not to change the subject too much, but how does AAC compare to MP3? I assumed it was a lower quality since it was so much smaller.. Enlighten me please

AAC is better compression algorithm so fits more information in the same bit rate. Generally I have all files on my ipod in 320 AAC. But then again I using UE-10s with it, so I want to get all the details/separation I can. I also run some lossless files.

 

[The D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany Generally AAC is alittle less then double the compression of LAME Mp3. 96 AAC = close to 192 LAME MP3

That is a full out lie (64kbs wma = 128kbs mp3 anyone?).

It is VERY easy to ABX them apart.


Just go and ****.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany Generally AAC is alittle less then double the compression of LAME Mp3. 96 AAC = close to 192 LAME MP3

That is a load of crap. At identical bitrates, AAC is slightly superior. You could probably even make an argument for close CBR bitrates, such as 128CBR MP3 to 96AAC. But the performance is NOWHERE near double, and LAME VBR's optimization surpasses even AAC.

 

[milkpowder]

The MP3 ripping algorithm in iTunes is crap for anything under 192kbps. Apple AAC is brilliant though. Just FYI.

 

[Ploop]

shuffle and 96kbps? I don't think any headphones can fix that.....

 

[jagorev]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ploop shuffle and 96kbps? I don't think any headphones can fix that.....

The shuffle has some of the best sound quality of any DAP. Please don't spread nonsense.

 

[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev The shuffle has some of the best sound quality of any DAP. Please don't spread nonsense.

I think he's talking about the bit rate.

Ian