[Lifesaburrito]

I currently own a pair of Grado sr80s, and I'm now the winning bidder on a pair of Etymotic er4p's. I'll be using these with the Vision:M I bought online, which should arrive soon.

My music library is all in 64 kbps. I was wondering if I should change those to something with better sound quality?? If so, what should I change them into?
I'm a little skeptic about the whole idea of decompressing a song to make it sound better. It seems like, for instance, trying to turn a simple snapshot into a 6megapixel photo. How can you get more from less? Someone please explain to me how that works.

Also, supposing I keep my songs at 64 kbps... Would it even be worth it to own the er4p's?

---Matt.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Um...well, no offense, but if you like 64 kbps...you really don't belong here lol. Sorry to put it that way, but if your ears rnt offended by that low of a bitrate, then ur better off listening through stock earbuds. To really get good quality at small files, rip @ mp3 at 192, or AAC at 128. And you need to rip from CDs, btw. It is flat out impossible to make a 64 to a 128 or wtv.

 

[zip22]

your thinking about the pictures is correct, you can't get something better when you're starting with something worse. so up-converting isn't really an option.

he also never said he liked 64kbps.

 

[dhp]

umm... try 192 kbps... that's the sweet spot right there imo, unless, of course, you get a DAC

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Yes, but how can you listen to 64 in the first place?

Again, no offense, but I am honestly astounded that people actually listen to music at that bitrate.

 

[Lifesaburrito]

There are actually some really well recorded albums I have that sound pretty good, even at 64 kbps, but most of my 64 kbps songs are sorta..... meh.

I have some 128 kbps MP3s in my library as well, though I don't pay attention to which is which. Maybe sometimes I assume it's a better recording, when actually it's in a better format, or vise versa. I don't yet have much of an ear for what commpression sounds like, so it's hard for me to tell.

Ok, I'll redo my library, and rip everything to MP3 192kbps. What program should I use for this, and where can I get it. Is "LAME" what I'm looking for?

 

[Lifesaburrito]

I have good ears, they're just untrained. After my Sennheiser 590s were stolen, and I replaced them with the grado's, I stopped scrutinizing the music so much and just tried my best to enjoy it. Nowadays I don't think about sound quality as I'm listening.

I am really excited to get the Ety's and better quality tracks, though, don't get me wrong.

It's just the thing to put the spice back into my listening, as I haven't really listened to music in a few months.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

lol well, iTunes is very, VERY user-friendly. I don't see why people bash it. If they're whining about Quicktime, you have to have it for some videos you see online.

Anyway, go for iTunes and then get the ripped songs from its music directory. Labeled nicely, but the source that iTunes get the CD info from is shaky, so check the info it retrives from the database before you rip it.

 

[zip22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifesaburrito I stopped scrutinizing the music so much and just tried my best to enjoy it. Nowadays I don't think about sound quality as I'm listening.

how DARE you!

if you use itunes to re-rip your cds, you'll need to change the import settings. edit > preferences > advanced > importing
then choose mp3 and whatever bitrate you want. if you go custom, you can also enable variable bit-rate (vbr) which is kind of nice. it will save space where it can.

 

[Lifesaburrito]

Thanks, man. I have one last question.
You mentioned AAC at 128, and DieInAFire mention DAC...

If I can get quality like MP3-192 from something smaller, like this AAC you speak of, I'd prefer to do that. I have WAY too much music to waste space, especially with only 30 gigs on the Vision. Tell me something about DAC and ACC, how I can use them, and whether or not I should.

 

[zip22]

AAC is a different format and the vision:m does not support it. mp3 is you're best option. it may be slightly worse than aac at the same bitrate, but mp3 is the universal format that all current mp3 players will accept. you can test the quality of mp3 at different bitrates if you feel like getting the absolute lowest bitrate that is acceptable to your ears. use vbr regardless as it will do nothing but improve the size to quality (i think). you may find you cannot tell the difference between 160kbps and 192 kbps. i think either would be a pretty safe bet. 192 obviously a little safer, but a slight size sacrifice.

 

[Lifesaburrito]

Thanks a lot.

The help is greatly appreciated.

It's 2:15 in the ****ing AM, time for sleep. ciao

 

[gshan]

I will vouch for 64kbps. I've actually used it for portable outdoor use. Sounded perfectly fine with cheaper phones and easily comparable to 128+ mp3s. Allowed for big storage on those smaller sized flash players back in the day.

And I could live with it today if I was still using poor-isolation phones during the noisy commute.

 

[Lifesaburrito]

"And I could live with it today if I was still using poor-isolation phones during the noisy commute."

I used to listen on the subway a lot with my Grado's, when I lived in Boston.

Ok, one more friggin question before I sleep:

Is it true that wma has better sound than mp3, meaning if I had two tracks with the same kbps, one wma, and one mp3, the wma would sound better? I don't remember where I heard that. If I can get away with having mp3 160 sound quality from a smaller bitrate wma, that would be nice. Otherwise I'll just go for the mp3 160.

 

[dhp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifesaburrito Thanks, man. I have one last question. You mentioned AAC at 128, and DieInAFire mention DAC... If I can get quality like MP3-192 from something smaller, like this AAC you speak of, I'd prefer to do that. I have WAY too much music to waste space, especially with only 30 gigs on the Vision. Tell me something about DAC and ACC, how I can use them, and whether or not I should.

A DAC is just a Converter from Digital to Analog... I'm just saying that unless you have an external DAC, then 192 kbps should be good enough for any of your headphones