[Ojsinnerz]

Most of my MP3s are in 192 to 320.

I started using FLAC very recently as well.

 

[pila405]

WAV [uncompressed] for PC and FLAC for the PMP [D2 & S9 soon].

 

[DOUGHN]

90% most 320 aac,
10% few 192 aac

on my iphone 3G and iPod 80gb

 

[AndrewF]

95% 320aac

5% 256 or slighly below mp3, from Amazon and Emusic.

Switched from Apple Lossless to 320aac without being able to notice even the slightest difference. I can't tell the 256mp3 from the 320aac, either.

 

[SierraHotel01]

iTunes 256 kbps (kilobits per second) minimum.
An increasing number of iTunes tracks are now offered at this bit rate.

Preferred: Apple Lossless (800-1000 kbps)

(My ears notice an improvement with Apple Lossless, over 256 kbps. Haven't tried 320 AAC.)

 

[PixelSquish]

80% 192kbps VBR mp3 on the highest quality settings with no limit to max bitrate for any passage.

about 10% is in 256kbps VBR mp3.

the rest are older 128kbps mp3 and zune marketplace subscription tunes.

 

[Pale Rider]

I have a mix of all sorts from my earlier days of digital sound. I have tried FLAC, but not worth the hassle for me, especially since I didn't enjoy my Rockbox experience very much. Or I didn't get as much out of it as I had hoped. I may try it again, but for now, all new rips are Apple Lossless. I did a WAV-vs.-AL comparison, and couldn't hear a darn thing to justify the extra hard drive space consumption, and a recent article I read seems to confirm that comparison; plus WAV files don't seem to permit artwork, and I admit to enjoying the eye candy. I still get a fair bit of stuff at 128 and 256 out of the iTunes Store when I don't care to own the CD. But even on my Nano and iPhone, most of my stuff is now Apple Lossless.

 

[synaesthetic]

Almost universally 192kbps MP3, though I have a few things I ripped at 256kbps or 320kbps. My ears are too leaden to tell the difference though, and I may one day re-rip everything to 192kbps to save space.

Though if I do a CF-mod Mini (soon) I won't really need to do so, since 32GB will hold all my music five times over.

 

[dallan]

I just hit a song as my computer was dropping thru selections yesterday and i had to stop and say "this is so thin sounding and lacking of body" I though it was the recording and pulled up the player and it was an old 320 download.
I found the cd and reimported it as alac.

Guess i'm used to alac and flac files or wav.

95%+ alac or wav but mostly use alac.

Many saved songs are in flac files but i rarely used them due to music player and ipod. Eventually i will pick up a Cowon or Fuse possibly to play those.

 

[LFC_SL]

Lame 3.97 320kbps CBR

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott549 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am 47 years old. When I was growing up I experienced the difference between LP's and cassettes. You could record an album with the best tape available on a $500 cassette deck and you could definitely tell the difference. Probably the equivalent of about a 100 kbps compressed digital file. In other words, a 128 kbps mp3 beats the $500 cassette deck.

Yeah, these threads are really amusing to those of use who lived through the days of analog audio where there actually was a significant difference between the various types of sources available. These days good DACs and modern encoding schemes provide such uniform consistency that people strain to imagine differences that most of the time aren't really there. I guess it just comes from a need to quantify things, no matter how small (or even nonexistent) any real differences are.

I've never seen a single real (meaning properly-conducted and blind) test where even trained listeners using high-end equipment could easily resolve high-bitrate compressed tracks from the source, yet somehow you commonly read of people here claiming to be able to easily and casually discern the difference. Think about it.

 

[NajoBB]

Most of my songs are ALAC, then FLAC and some MP3/AAC 224-320kbs.

 

[vespadaddy]

Flac only here, on my 4 GB Clip, driving Westone 3's.

 

[NajoBB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never seen a single real (meaning properly-conducted and blind) test where even trained listeners using high-end equipment could easily resolve high-bitrate compressed tracks from the source, yet somehow you commonly read of people here claiming to be able to easily and casually discern the difference. Think about it.

I've never seen a single real (meaning properly-conducted and blind) test where even trained listeners using high-end equipment could easily tell the difference between 30$ and 300$ (or even more expensive) headphone cable and yet many people here have re-cabled their headphones trying to justify the cost with words like "night and day difference" even though majority of them can't even hear the difference between lossy and lossless. Think about that.

 

[Carmantom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fameh /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC for PC and 320 for iPod. And well, when downloading from internet...the best possible If you are planning to get one of those good IEMs, i think you should try to go 320 or at least 256. ALAC could be good too if you are going to use then on your ipod.

I use same - Flac and highest bitrates mp3. I also use the Flac for Squeezebox