[janruzinsky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caribou679 /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I encode in Flac the size of a normal cd is around 325-375mb. I do not encode in mp3 but instead I encode in ogg level 8, which is about 256kbs, and the file size is around 100-150 mb. On a mp3 player like the Cowon D2 I use a SDHC card of 8gb and these differences in size make me consider to use the ogg forrmat. On my Cowon U2 of 1 gb, I even encode in ogg level 2 ,96kbs,for about 25-35mb. I prefer to have more music at my disposition than to have to "unload-load" new music on the player. Also , I like very much the sound that ogg encoding gives compared to file size. I am sure some prefer mp3 encoding. regards,

Can you easily explain the difference between mp3 and ogg coding?

 

[janruzinsky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerstud /img/forum/go_quote.gif Flac, Lossless, 320kps, 192kps all sound the same to my ears. However, some may be able to see the difference. Do an experiment. Although this is a novel idea around head-fi but humor me with my recommendation. -Blindtest the different formats. See if you can tell the difference and if you can pick which is which. There was a great link imtbiker posted about some blindtesting and the guy broke down in tears. Don't know where the link is but do a search if you are interested.

Well I can hear the difference between a 192 and a 320 mp3 but I can not hear it between a 320 mp3 and FLAC (using UE triple fi).
I think it is reasonable to code at least to 320 (the size differences between the different mp3 formats are not huge)

 

[b0dhi]

Mine is about 60% 240-320 mp3, 40% flac. I prefer flacs only for my favourite classical/orchestral music and IDM. Most music is just as enjoyable with 320 mp3 IMO.

 

[espire]

Few ears can tell the difference. If you can afford the space and the time, go for it, as it can't hurt, and you can brag to your friends

If it's at all an inconvenience to you, don't bother. A good compromise would be to change your ripping settings to FLAC, so that anything new is ripped to it, but you don't have to spend the time updating.

 

[Doo Doo Brown]

There are so many variables at play in this debate: the quality of the recording, the source, storage capacity, your cans, amp, cables, etc. If I'm spending big bucks on really nice equipment, I'm probably going to go lossless as much as possible. But at my current modest levels of spending, 320kbs sounds as good as FLAC to me.

 

[PeterDLai]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doo Doo Brown /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are so many variables at play in this debate: the quality of the recording, the source, storage capacity, your cans, amp, cables, etc. If I'm spending big bucks on really nice equipment, I'm probably going to go lossless as much as possible. But at my current modest levels of spending, 320kbs sounds as good as FLAC to me.

x2

 

[aych]

with a 320 mp3 I really can't hear the difference. I've brought it to my recording studio, even those monitors cant hear a difference large enough to warrent a full re-rip.

 

[Caribou679]

Quote:

Originally Posted by janruzinsky /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you easily explain the difference between mp3 and ogg coding?

IMHO,
If you use a mp3 player you need to take the music from your cd(rip) and encode it in a file format ( either mp3, flac, ogg, alac, etc) and then transfer those files to your player so you can listen.

And like the rest of the developping technologies, there is no standard that was set and many cies have developped their own encoding technologies.

So mp3 is one technological product and ogg is another and they both do the same thing.

And as we are in an audiophile forum, excellency and the research of the best make us look at THE tool that will give us the best feeling for the money.

And most of us are reaching for this perfect sound...

Some through mp3 some through ogg...

These comes from an Wikipedia article:

"Vorbis is a free and open source, lossy audio codec project headed by the Xiph.Org Foundation and intended to serve as a replacement for MP3. It is most commonly used in conjunction with the Ogg container and is therefore called Ogg Vorbis."


"Codec comparisons
For many applications, Vorbis has clear advantages over other lossy audio codecs in that it is patent-free and has free and open-source implementations and therefore is free to use, implement, or modify as one sees fit, yet produces smaller files than most other codecs at equivalent or higher quality."

"Mid to low bitrates (less than 128 kb/s down to 64 kb/s): private tests (80 kb/s, 96 kb/s) shows that aoTuV Vorbis has a better quality than other lossy audio codecs (LC-AAC, HE-AAC, MP3, MPC, WMA).

Mid bitrate (128kb/s): most recent public multiformat test at 128 kb/s shows a four-way tie between aoTuV Vorbis, LAME-encoded MP3, WMA Pro, and QuickTime AAC, with each codec essentially transparent (sounds identical to the original music file).

High bitrates (more than 128 kb/s): most people do not hear significant differences. However, trained listeners can often hear significant differences between codecs at identical bitrates, and aoTuV Vorbis performs very well, i.e. better than other formats such as LC-AAC, MP3, and MPC (see this 180 kb/s test on classical music). "

Vorbis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

regards,

 

[Illidan]

I couldn't tell the difference between lossles and 320kbs mp3, the quality of the recording is far more important than the files format IMHO.

 

[Richdel]

I am currently converting my cd's to digital files. I spent a lot of time trying to decide what format I would convert to. I settled on converting all cd's to FLAC. I use the FLAC files for my PC-driven home stereo. I then convert the FLAC files to 256KB lame mp3 for use on my Creative Zen V+ 4GB with Atrios M5's. I find it offers the best sound to size compromise for me.

After asking very similar questions as the OP, I finally decided to do the blind A/B/C/D...test. I took a FLAC file of a song I knew very well, converted it to the multiple lossy encoded files. I chose the Lame-encoded 192kb over the OGG just because the current player (CZV+) does not support OGG. I chose the 256KB over the other encoded MP3 bitrates because it was the point at which I began to notice a difference from the original and FLAC sources. There is no right answer for everyone, do the test yourself and you will never 2nd guess your decision later on.

The file size data was:

Original file - .wav - 34.856mb
FLAC L6 - 20.82mb
FLAC L7 - 21.11mb
FLAC L8 - 21.109mb
mp3 168kb - 4.03mb
mp3 192kb - 4.8mb
mp3 256kb - 5.89mb
mp3 320kb - 7.9mb
ogg L6 (~182kb) - 4.49mb
ogg L7 (~214kb) - 5.29mb
ogg L8 (~244kb) - 6.025mb
ogg L9 (~312kb) - 7.702MB

 

[Illidan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richdel /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am currently converting my cd's to digital files. I spent a lot of time trying to decide what format I would convert to. I settled on converting all cd's to FLAC. I use the FLAC files for my PC-driven home stereo. I then convert the FLAC files to 256KB lame mp3 for use on my Creative Zen V+ 4GB with Atrios M5's. I find it offers the best sound to size compromise for me. After asking very similar questions as the OP, I finally decided to do the blind A/B/C/D...test. I took a FLAC file of a song I knew very well, converted it to the multiple lossy encoded files. I chose the Lame-encoded 192kb over the OGG just because the current player (CZV+) does not support OGG. I chose the 256KB over the other encoded MP3 bitrates because it was the point at which I began to notice a difference from the original and FLAC sources. There is no right answer for everyone, do the test yourself and you will never 2nd guess your decision later on. The file size data was: Original file - .wav - 34.856mb FLAC L6 - 20.82mb FLAC L7 - 21.11mb FLAC L8 - 21.109mb mp3 168kb - 4.03mb mp3 192kb - 4.8mb mp3 256kb - 5.89mb mp3 320kb - 7.9mb ogg L6 (~182kb) - 4.49mb ogg L7 (~214kb) - 5.29mb ogg L8 (~244kb) - 6.025mb ogg L9 (~312kb) - 7.702MB

I did a similar test before including mp3 192kbs~320kbs lossless and wav, wav had a overall better quality and all other codecs were above the same level.

 

[Edwood]

I use FLAC because I also listen to the same files with my full home rig, which is not even close to portable.