[ElectricImages]

no, I understand exactly what you mean. I am just starting out with this stuff and I know that the headphones I got aren't anywhere near top of the line (I got the for $40...). That's why I am thinking there is no point in putting lossless files on my player - because I don't have the best hardware going on anyways so the improvement in quality of the file probably wont translate to too much improvement in what I am hearing. From what I read the cx300's are decent starting / low end earbuds and thats why I picked them up (didn't want to spend 100+).

It sounds like 192k is probably a good place for me to start testing. I will have to try a couple rates around there too to see what kind of difference I can tell. I will have to do this when I get a chance

. At least I know where to start!

 

[jonnywolfet]

cool, didnt want to sound annoying, or like im pushing you to upgrade.

for me, in the portable situation, and with my shure e4c's (sometimes even amped) i find it hard to distinguish 192kbps from the real thing. (unless its acoustic music)

 

[ElectricImages]

haha no, no worries. That is actually the kind of thing I wanted to hear. Like about what level of compression is probably going to give me the best size vs. quality considering the level of hardware I have

.

And I guess in that situation you could always just rip your acoustic music at a higher rate and leave the rest at 192.

 

[jonnywolfet]

exactly, im glad i was of help.

 

[pds6]

Quote:

Brent Hutto says: To answer your final question, the only people who can reliably distinguish between a 320kbps WMA file (properly encoded) and the original CD-quality music are a) well-trained listeners, b) with very good equipment and a quiet listening environment, c) listening to material purposely selected to point out the flaws in lossy encoders. And even then it takes extremely careful listening and they can't necessarily detect it 100% of the time.

Right On Brent (except for the WMA)!

I have read a number of reviews conducted by stereo magazines with a panel of "experts" (musicians, singers, producers and engineers). All the experts could readily tell a cd from a MP3 recording at under 192 bits. At 256 bits, none of the experts consistently picked the cd! I record at 320 bits - MP3.

I have picked the 320 bit - MP3 formate for five reasons:

(1) MP3 sounds good for day-in-and-out use:

There are a number of sites for Beatles fans (For Example: http://www.stevesbeatles.com). Some of the sites provide songs, lyrics and anomalies. These anomalies (For Example: In the song, A Day In The Life, at 4:50, a chair is squeaking and other background sounds can be heard) consist of background coughs, counts, talking and other off-mike sounds. I have gone through a hundred or more of these anomalies. I can hear (not all), but the vast majority of these background, off-mike sounds. That seems to me to be a pretty good test for sound quality;

(2) The MP3 formate can go anywhere:

Like the beautiful woman, MP3 is invited everywhere! My dvd and my car cd player are both in love with my MP3 formate. Mac or Mr. Softie? No problem.

There are a number of formates that do sound better than MP3. Unfortunitity, many of these formates work with specific players. Do you want to take the risk that your super-duper formate will be orphaned in the future. All that ripping for nothing;

(3) The higher the bit rate, the more often the hard disk must be accessed (that is why higher bit rates drain batteries faster). Better sound, but with a potential mechanical wash to the music;

(4) I like the iTunes experience. I think iTunes on the Macintosh is far superior than WMA with Mr. Softie;

and,

(5) As above-noted, around 256 bits the experts are unable to consistantly distinguish the cd from the ripped digital recording. Going to 320 bits adds a little more, but not much.


All in all, I think 320 MP3 is the best formate for most people.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 All in all, I think 320 MP3 is the best formate for most people.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If 320kbps MP3 is the best format for anyone at all (and that is debatable), it will be for a very small fraction of the population. Most people, if they spend a small amount of time doing an ABX test, will find that they are unable to distinguish files made with LAME's -V 2 setting, or even -V 3 through -V 5. These files will average somewhere from 192kbps (-V 2) to 128kbps (-V 5). If a listener who finds a LAME -V 5 file to be transparent in a blind ABX test uses 320kbps, he will be making files that are 250% bigger than they need to be, yet he will be achieving NO benefit from the additional file size.

 

[pds6]

Quote:

I couldn't disagree with you more. If 320kbps MP3 is the best format for anyone at all (and that is debatable), it will be for a very small fraction of the population. Most people, if they spend a small amount of time doing an ABX test, will find that they are unable to distinguish files made with LAME's -V 2 setting, or even -V 3 through -V 5. These files will average somewhere from 192kbps (-V 2) to 128kbps (-V 5). If a listener who finds a LAME -V 5 file to be transparent in a blind ABX test uses 320kbps, he will be making files that are 250% bigger than they need to be, yet he will be achieving NO benefit from the additional file size.

(1) I am very sorry for anyone that cannot regularly differentiate between a 128 bit recording and a 320 bit recording. This could be an early sign of Tinnitus;

and,

(2) How much file space do you need? In 320 bit, you can store over six thousand (6,000) songs with album art on a 60g iPod. That is more than sixteen (16) days of non-stop music. How much more music could you possible want on a portable player?

Ripping an album once is enough. Why would you do all that work and not do it at the highest rate possible?


All in all, I think 320 MP3 is the best formate for most people.