rip bit rate
Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 24

LTUCCI1924

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Posts
6,240
Likes
11
I just got a zen 8gb and need to know about the bit rate.
Can I use wave looseless or should I use mp3 320 bit rate?
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 12:59 AM Post #2 of 24

dir_d

Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
58
Likes
0
mp3 320 should be smaller... I personally do v0 Vbr but some people might say its not as good as 320 straight. I personally think its fine and cant hear a diff. Files are lil smaller with the same quality when ripped to v0 Vbr.

Edit: Supposedly you can Rip down to V2 Vbr and not really tell the difference...Not to sure about that one.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 1:51 AM Post #5 of 24

dir_d

Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
58
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There is no reason to use lossless in an 8gb flash player. Use LAME -V2... you will never be able to hear any difference.


Ahh so its true....Yea what he said. I rip to v0 VBR for portable and home use.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 6:55 AM Post #6 of 24

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,764
Likes
74
Why not give AAC a try? If you go lossy that is...
Since its considered to be transparent at a lower bitrate than MP3 (LAME).
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM Post #7 of 24

majkel

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
2,783
Likes
56
LAME is transparent in no bitrate. I'm not sure the Zen supports AAC. If it's capable of playing back FLAC - give it a try, otherwise you should consider mp3 320kb/s FhG preferably, or wma 320kb/s 2-pass CBR. VBR 98 is less transparent, not worth trying.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM Post #8 of 24

LTUCCI1924

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Posts
6,240
Likes
11
Thanks guys. I redownloaded all my music to mp3 320 b/r instead of wav looseless 1411. the 320 seems to be about 5 times smaller take up.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 9:29 AM Post #9 of 24

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,764
Likes
74
Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
LAME is transparent in no bitrate.


Well, that certainly depends on a lot of factors. Like:
* LAME version.
* Music complexity.
* Playback gear.
* Your capability to hear artifacts, etc.
* ...

For most people (lets say 90%) LAME 3.97 V2 is transparent on most music (lets say 90%), using high quality playback gear.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 10:12 AM Post #10 of 24

Oya?

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Posts
742
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, that certainly depends on a lot of factors. Like:
* LAME version.
* Music complexity.
* Playback gear.
* Your capability to hear artifacts, etc.
* ...

For most people (lets say 90%) LAME 3.97 V2 is transparent on most music (lets say 90%), using high quality playback gear.



X2.
smily_headphones1.gif
Personally for me V0 is transparent on my gear for all my music; although admittedly it's not be worth the extra file sizes compared to V2, especially on an 8GB player like the OP's.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM Post #11 of 24

mrarroyo

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
19,073
Likes
29
Whichever format you choose to load your music in your zen make sure you load up your files in lossless in your computer. Later you can choose to convert to a loosy format when you upload the files in your zen.

I say this because at first I uploaded my files in 128 mp3, then I went to 192 VBR mp3, finally into Apple Lossless. So do not go through the pain of going through various iterations, and load them into your computer as a lossless files the first time. In the long run it will save you time and aggravation.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM Post #12 of 24

CodeToad

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
394
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
load them into your computer as a lossless files the first time. In the long run it will save you time and aggravation.


Is it safe to say then, with 1 TB drives common now, that keeping the originals in .WAV format from EAC is the most failsafe way to go?
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 4:22 PM Post #13 of 24

ILikeMusic

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Posts
1,538
Likes
39
Unless you truly don't care about storage space at all a better option would be to use a lossless compressed format like FLAC. This will give you a completely exact copy of the WAV file in approx. 50% less space.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 4:28 PM Post #14 of 24

NiceCans

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
3,875
Likes
13
Location
paradise on a lake in the sun
Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeToad /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is it safe to say then, with 1 TB drives common now, that keeping the originals in .WAV format from EAC is the most failsafe way to go?


FLAC and other lossless formats are the same as wav, but about 1/2 the size. When converted back to wav they will match the original wav file exactly.

*edit: I use the 'verify' option in the flac encoder to insure the conversion was fault free, takes a little longer, but worthwhile to me.
 
Jul 13, 2008 at 4:28 PM Post #15 of 24

CodeToad

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
394
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This will give you a completely exact copy of the WAV file in approx. 50% less space.


OK cool. What is the whole CUE thing? I don't understand what that does.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top