[Real Man of Genius]

Yes that can be fun. I "acquired" a bunch of files from my brother once while he was visiting. He had acquired them from a variety of sources. I had a Kenwood portable at the time and it had a feature where you could display the bitrate of the track that was playing with a few clicks of a button. I began playing "guess the bitrate" and was quickly appalled at how totally and completely wrong I would consistently be.
I soon discovered that the quality of the recording was the largest determining factor: well recorded 128kbps sounded better than poorly recorded 256kbps for example.

 

[KONAKONA]

Another vote for lossless. I have a lot of 'acquired' lossy stuff myself, way too much of it in 128kbps. Eventually you get fed up with it and buy the CDs though, I'm saving up for a few right now.

It all sounds fine on crappy equipment though.

 

[lifesundeath]

Although I can't fully tell the difference between FLAC and an MP3 at 320kb...I go for lossless when I can, to give me that psychological edge I need to make it through the day.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

I have been considering going back to lossless on my portable even though I know I can't hear the difference. Placebo is free in this case (other than the loss of some storage and battery life). I would do it if my Zune supported FLAC.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real Man of Genius /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have been considering going back to lossless on my portable even though I know I can't hear the difference. Placebo is free in this case (other than the loss of some storage and battery life).

I might do that too, if for no other reason than to simplify my library to one format. Well, as soon as I can find a flash-based media player large enough to hold my entire library in lossless that is, and we're not even close to there yet. Until that time I can't justify restricting my portable library, player model/brand options, etc. for zero SQ gain, so high-bitrate lossy it is.

But someday...

 

[darklegion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real Man of Genius /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have been considering going back to lossless on my portable even though I know I can't hear the difference. Placebo is free in this case (other than the loss of some storage and battery life). I would do it if my Zune supported FLAC.

Eh, I feel like people should just learn how to meditate and turn off their minds while listening to music, best placebo you'll ever get.That being said, if you have the space, go right ahead.I know I do, for transcoding purposes.

 

[lifesundeath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklegion /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh, I feel like people should just learn how to meditate and turn off their minds while listening to music, best placebo you'll ever get.That being said, if you have the space, go right ahead.I know I do, for transcoding purposes.

Every time I try to close my eyes and concentrate on a poorly encoded mp3 all I hear is clipping errors and various glitches, which totally corrupts the serenity of my astral plane. So I guess the choice is clear: FLAC if you want to have a more zen like existence.

 

[salannelson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif But what if your collection was all lower bitrate? Well, just run your collection through Xing and convert them to 256 kbs. Instant 256 kbs collection. Woot!

No. That won't do anything. If a song is encoded in 128kbs, the encoder takes away bits of the song and they go away FOREVER. There is no way to bring that information back. When you re-encode 128 into 256, you're just making the file bigger.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif It really comes down to mastering quality and the encoders. I use an mp3 encoder that sounds lossless at 128kps cbr but this only because the encoder is a great one.

I might be using the oldest encoder known to man. ok, well, sort of

I bought a copy of the fraunhofer pro encoder ($300 for that sucker!) back in 1998 or so. it was a linux binary (a.out - that's how old it is) and it did a super job at 128k cbr.

to this day, I nurse an ancient linux (freebsd, really) box along just to keep that encoder alive. nothing sounds better that I have found, for 128k. sounds nearly lossless to me. that's why they charged so much for it back then (closed source too, of course).

I may be their only customer for that platform and doubless I'm the only one still running it, too.


********* MPEG Layer-3 Encoder V3.1 (build Sep 23 1998) *************
(C) 1998 by Fraunhofer IIS-A

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by salannelson /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. That won't do anything. If a song is encoded in 128kbs, the encoder takes away bits of the song and they go away FOREVER. There is no way to bring that information back. When you re-encode 128 into 256, you're just making the file bigger.

Read the part you quoted in the context of the entire post it came from. I was commenting about people who don't know any better doing transcodes from low bitrate MP3 to higher bitrate MP3 just to make the file look like it is better quality when they share it out on P2P.

 

[Salmoneus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifesundeath /img/forum/go_quote.gif Every time I try to close my eyes and concentrate on a poorly encoded mp3 all I hear is clipping errors and various glitches, which totally corrupts the serenity of my astral plane. So I guess the choice is clear: FLAC if you want to have a more zen like existence.

I think this means that you need to take off the HP and make a few pilgrimages to the mecca of music...live concerts. After a few of those nirvana should be much easier to attain