[SlackerClerk107]

I've been ripping at 192 kbps, but I'm curious about what lossless has to offer. Is it worth re-doing all my CDs (about 20 in the library so far) and putting them into lossless? Also, is the size of the file like twice as much as my 192kbps rips? If it's a significant difference, I may think twice about doing it.

 

[OGTL]

Depending on what encoding you choose, it's going to be a hell of alot more than twice the size. a lossless WAV is 1411 kbps, FLAC or APE might cut that down to around half, but i wouldn't bother unless you have some high end components pushing your sound card. 192-256 VBR or 320VBR would be good I'd say, but again I don't know hwta kind of equipment you have. Happy listening

 

[SlackerClerk107]

Well I'm just ripping them into WMA format to put onto my ZV:M. I'm just looking for the best compromise of quality and small size, I realize that's a lot to ask though. How about 320 kbps? Would I be able to notice the difference?

 

[OGTL]

Between 128 and 192 you would certainly, and I always can tell the difference from a 192 as opposed to a 256+ bit rate MP3 or AAC. Maybe rip a few songs at 224, some at 256, maybe a few at 320 and see what makes the biggest difference and go with that.

 

[SlackerClerk107]

Yeah I guess I'll fiddle around with it after I wake up. Thanks.

 

[richard]

Try doing an ABX test - a double blind test in which you listen to two level controlled samples ripped at different bitrates to see if you can tell the difference. If you know what you are comparing, most people can tell the difference between 192 and lossless. In a blind test, 128 or 160 VBR are indistinguishable from the original to most people.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OGTL Between 128 and 192 you would certainly, and I always can tell the difference from a 192 as opposed to a 256+ bit rate MP3 or AAC. Maybe rip a few songs at 224, some at 256, maybe a few at 320 and see what makes the biggest difference and go with that.

You "always can tell the difference" how? By listening to the two differently compressed tracks or by doing a proper double blind test. Don't discount placebo effect.

Your findings (being able to always tell between 192 and 256) contrast quite strongly with the majority of scientific testing.

Obviously, if we are talking about good encoding software with variable bit rate.

 

[trains are bad]

BITRATES MEAN NOTHING

By themselves. You have to specify the codec used! As someone who has done extensive ABX testing, it irritates me to no end to see threads like this with people making statements about bitrates. Sound quality is not a function exclusively of bitrate.

128kbps VBR LAME is very good quality. Truly acceptable for the vast majority of music. 190kbps LAME is practically transparent. I HAVE succeed in ABXing it from flac with particular extremely well recorded tracks. I have never ABXd anything over 190kbps LAME.

This is on my home rig btw. I would have no qualms about sound quality using 128kbps (even 100kbps! it sounds great!) LAME on a portable. I would have no problem using 190kbps if I was space challenged, like on this laptop.

I use FLAC for archival reasons so I listen to that exclusively at home. I'm a proponent of FLAC, but it's not because of sound quality.

 

[nelamvr6]

I have been using mp3 encoded to VBR V0 for quite a while and I have a very hard time telling them from lossless files.

For me it's a very good compromise when using a portable. You can get a LOT more files in than when using lossless.

 

[OGTL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman You "always can tell the difference" how? By listening to the two differently compressed tracks or by doing a proper double blind test. Don't discount placebo effect. Your findings (being able to always tell between 192 and 256) contrast quite strongly with the majority of scientific testing. Obviously, if we are talking about good encoding software with variable bit rate.

By putting them in a playlist and hitting shuffle.

 

[kugino]

yes, codecs do matter. 192VBR AAC is fantastic, and is the ideal size/performance bitrate when i need to transport a lot of tunes, like on my shuffle or my new nano. also, using a good ripper/transcoder like Max on the mac helps. moreover, it also depends on the type of music you're listening to. i prefer ALAC on classical and jazz, but it's not a big deal how resolved my music is when i'm listening to trans or most pop music. just a personal preference...

 

[pds6]

Question: If I rip at 192 bits, I can fit more song on my iPod.

Answer: This is True, but in MP3 320 bit format, you can fit over 6,000 song on a 60 gig iPod. This is 16 days of non-stop music. How much music do you need on your player.

Question: I have been told there are better sounding formats than the MP3 format.

Answer: This is also true. Most people cannot tell the difference, but some people are able to notice the enhanced qualities of other formats.

Question: Are there any other reasons to pick the MP3 format:

Answer: Yes, MP3 is universal. It goes anywhere. Every digital player, cd, dvd and computer I know of will play the MP3 format. MP3 works with both Apple and Windows.

Bottom Line: Space is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Within a year, 120 gig digital players will be common. I just read an article about upcoming 32 gig flash memory. Soon, the problem will be filling the space. Rip your cd's at the highest universal rate (320).

I believe you should rip in MP3 format. Why would you do all that work and find-out that the next player you want to buy cannot play your format.

Ripping is a pain in the *****. Doing it once is enough!

I believe ripping in 320 MP3 lame cbr is the overall best choice.