[Blackwoof]

It very odd how Lame MP3 V2(192kb/s) is more robust than other codec's I've used only tiny few need to upped to 256kbps(V0).

 

[bigshot]

The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. It really doesn’t matter as long as it is transparent.

 

[Blackwoof]

The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. It really doesn’t matter as long as it is transparent.

Depends on the content. I mainly focusing on Ambient since If I encode a 1 hour long Steve roach CD at V0 the bitrate is 265kbps with zero quality gains & is larger than a 320k MP3 cause of Its length. I only use V0 if the album actually needs It.

 

[bigshot]

I don't want to check every rip. I just pick a rate that I know works for everything and then turn on VBR to make it efficient.

A minute of stereo MP3 at 192 comes in at 1.44 MB. At 256 it's 1.92. At 320 it's 2.4. Lossless is 5.68 MB. The difference in size between lossless and lossy is huge. The difference between one lossy rate and another is tiny. You're talking about a difference of about 60 MB per hour. It would take a LOT of hours for that to add up to anything that really mattered.

 

[Blackwoof]

Just re read HA's MP3 vs AAC face off, They admit that Lame 3.99+ uses the bit reservoir to force bitrates above 320kbps in VBR. Just after they told me that can't be done because MP3 can't read frames at 328 ~ 640kbps like in free frame mode despite the fact foobar shows 330kbps for 0.5 ~ 1 sec when a intro is hard to compress?.

 

[bigshot]

You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.

 

[danadam]

You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.

Apparently we can't have a month without complaining about HA

 

[Blackwoof]

You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.

Me using 160kbps AAC = Just set It to 256kps VBR

Me using V3 LAME = Why does It matter if 3.99+ is doing 384 ~ 540kbps through a dirty trick?.

Got love the salt AAC users are showing that LAME MP3 could push the codec further, By exploiting how MP3 goes from 192 samples to 170 when set to 48KHz as well.

 

[bigshot]

The difference in file size is inconsequential. You don't have to find the exact line where it becomes transparent. You just need to choose a setting that is transparent for sure.

 

[Sterling2]

What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound. And technology has moved on now to Apple Music Lossless and Hi-Res streaming for sound that really is lifelike when processed by a contemporary DAC. In other words, this thread is kind of meaningless for anyone routing Apple Music via usb to their DAC.

 

[bigshot]

ALAC doesn’t stream. And it isn’t transmitted across Bluetooth. AAC sounds exactly the same to human ears and it streams and transmits wirelessly. AAC also has much smaller file sizes than ALAC.

 

[gregorio]

What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound.

Extremely few want that, which is why popular music genres and even some contemporary classical genres started moving away from that in the 1950’s.

G

 

[castleofargh]

I had the same thought. Modern music seems like a pretty strong argument against everybody wanting lifelike sound.
Of course there is nothing wrong with lossless formats or a desire for hifi. All this is really about having options.

 

[bigshot]

If you can’t hear a difference in a controlled listening test, why does it matter?

 

[Roland P]

If you can’t hear a difference in a controlled listening test, why does it matter?

It's nice to have a 1:1 rip of your CDs for archiving, in case your CD get scratched or worse.