| Originally Posted by Spiritboxer Yeah, it's a real pia. I re-ripped one CD back to 224 but it just sounded too flat for me. Jacked it back up again to AAC 320 and that's it for me, everything just sounds better at the higher bit rate. Well, to these ears anyway,everybody hears things differently and I can only speak for myself. 
|
| Originally Posted by Parrothead OK...now if i decide to re-rip all my tracks...changing from 160 to 320 (Pain in the butt), about how many average length song could you fit on a 60g Ipod? I know lossless would give me even less space, but is the sound difference worth it? |
| Originally Posted by Parrothead Spiritboxer, How do you like your UM2's on your Ipod? I was thinking of getting the UM2's or the UE super.fi 5 pros. |
| Originally Posted by Spiritboxer I have 2600 songs with 1GB left on a 20GB iPod. Lot of long classical & jazz tracks though so it's hard to say. I ripped a few CD's in lossless and 320 seemed fine to me. My ears aren't all that good though, rip a few yourself and listen. In the end it gonna be your call anyway and personally I don't think it's worth the space though I'm sure there are those who would disagree. |
| Originally Posted by rhythmicmoose Whatever you decide to use, you'll be disatisfied with at some point, so I don't really know what to tell you. I used to use 224 kbps AAC (and before that 192 kbps AAC), but I've been ripping at 256 kbps VBR AAC since iTunes 5 came out. Each time I switched settings, I tested to see what was the lowest bitrate that I could not distinguish from lossless files. It used to be 192. Then it was 224, and when I reevaluated with the new VBR settings, I found that 224 wasn't cutting it anymore if I was really listening carefully. This is with side-by-side comparison, by the way. I don't do blind because then I feel like I'm cheating myself out of something that, if I knew the difference, I might enjoy. So really that's just a long way of saying that it's not going to matter much. If battery life is really a problem, switch back down. Otherwise, you're probably saving yourself not one, but two full reencodes by not doing anything. As a side note, I was testing 256 kbps VBR AACs against -V 0 --vbr-new LAME MP3s using the new 3.97 beta release, and I was definitely not impresssed. The bass encoding of AAC was noticeably better, even on my so-so equipment. When I EQed to isolate the bass track, it became quite apparent that the MP3 version was much more simplified than the same clip in VBR AAC. So I guess that's just a long way of saying that you should stick with AAC. 
|
| Originally Posted by Spad This exactly mirrors my experience, step by step. Where were you when I was doing all those damned lower BR AAC rips? Come to think of it, you were doing your own.
Very wise counsel. |
| Originally Posted by Spiritboxer Once you go AAC, you'll never go back? In a year's time we'll all own 60GB(minimum) dap's and rip with whatever version of lossless is around. I have seen the future and there's no end to all of this. Great fun! |
| Originally Posted by rhythmicmoose As a side note, I was testing 256 kbps VBR AACs against -V 0 --vbr-new LAME MP3s using the new 3.97 beta release, and I was definitely not impresssed. The bass encoding of AAC was noticeably better, even on my so-so equipment. When I EQed to isolate the bass track, it became quite apparent that the MP3 version was much more simplified than the same clip in VBR AAC. |
| Originally Posted by Spad I just added a 5g 60 to my photo 60. I think I'll load one with lossless and the other with 256 AAC VBRs. Then I'll leave 'em both at home and hit the road with my trusty little Nano.
|
