[EdipisReks]

i rip rock, electronica, industrial, etc at 192 KBPS AAC and classical and jazz, etc, at 320AAC. i probably can't hear a real difference between 192 and 320, but the size penalty is small enough that i don't mind indulging my delusion. i know that i can't tell the difference between 320KBPS AAC and lossless. with MP3's, i find that 192 and above sounds pretty damn perfect from a good codec. 160 sounds fine unless i'm really listening for the artifacts (which i rarely do, since i listen to music for the music, not for the artifacts. 128 MP3 sounds tinny and kind of distorted in the backgroud, like there were bells playing very softly. below 128, i find the sound to be dreadful.

i've experiments with WMA formats on my dads thinkpad, and i find it to be acceptable at 160 KBPS and above. it does seem to distort more than AAC, though.

if i had to stick to one lossy format and bitrate, 192KBPS AAC would probably be it. i would choose 192KBPS MP3 over WMA, as it sounds less distorted, to my ear.

 

[james902]

being edumucated into DEBT AHHH... the price of knowledge... it's almost as bad as grad-school...

loss of hd space... loss of molla in my wallet... mom giving me the funny look...


feeling and hearing good music... priceless

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan Personally, these days - I rip with OGG at quality '10'... somewhere between 400-600kbps, but well worth all the space it hogs up

If I were you I'd actually go lossless, because while Ogg Vorbis q10 may be transparent to you, it is still not good enough to be technically valid backup.

 

[rextrade]

I find I stop noticing any differences between 196-224 for most music, but I rip a little higher just in case.

 

[Zaied]

Im confused.

Is encoding at 48khz generally better than 44.1khz at a bitrate of 256kbps?

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaied Im confused. Is encoding at 48khz generally better than 44.1khz at a bitrate of 256kbps?

Not if you're recording from CD.. no, because the extra 3.9khz of bandwidth just isn't used...

The only time that I can think of would be if you were recording something from the line in (analog), or using something like DAT that can record / playback at 48khz...

 

[Mr.Radar]

Most lossy encoders throw out everything above 20 KHz anyways so you won't see any benefit from 48KHz vs. 44.1 KHz. And because they're so close to each other it's very hard to do good resampling between them (meaning reduction in sound quality almost all the time).