[Spiritboxer]

Reripped Diana Krall's "Live In Paris" to Apple Lossless from 128kbps and liked what I heard but the file is over 11 times bigger now. Wouldn't fit much on a Mini at that size, lol. Took it down to 320kbps and that's 2.5x bigger than 128 which is a heckuva lot better!
Is there a significant difference in SQ between 320, 256, 192 etc.? Want to get the best sound/most music combo I can fit on a Mini for now while I hem & haw about what 20GB player I'm going to buy.
Man, those UM2's sure opened up a can'a worms and now I'm fishin' for the GOOD SOUND!

 

[chungsoi]

I use 320kbps AAC on my mini. I think its the sweet spot, but if you want more space you could also try 224 AAC. The difference is only subtle IMO, try them out and you be the judge!

 

[exkgb]

I use the UM2 too. I guess which bitrate you use all depends on your ears. For me:

128kbps: unlistenable, just plain bad
192kbps: still sounds pretty bad, but quite a bit better than 128
256kbps: a lot better
320kbps: this is what i usually use. I can still here a difference between APE and 320, but difference is really small.

You can try ripping into VBR too, I had some luck with that.. dunno if the ipod plays VBR mp3 though.

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by exkgb I use the UM2 too. I guess which bitrate you use all depends on your ears. For me: 128kbps: unlistenable, just plain bad 192kbps: still sounds pretty bad, but quite a bit better than 128 256kbps: a lot better 320kbps: this is what i usually use. I can still here a difference between APE and 320, but difference is really small. You can try ripping into VBR too, I had some luck with that.. dunno if the ipod plays VBR mp3 though.

Even with my UE-10s and my 60 gig photo. It is hard for me to tell the difference between 192 AAC and 320 AAC. If space is an issue I would go with 256 AAC. Or var. bit rate AAC.

I play it safe and have all my files at 320 AAC. Again most important is that you use a good compression encoder. AAC or MP4 are good. There are many others. AAC works best with apple so I use that.

 

[blessingx]

The battery life drain seems to step largely (for average length pop, rock, etc. songs) between 224/256. Personally I think 224 - 320 if a far smaller quality step than 320 to ALAC. I say go ALAC or 192/224 AAC. Although there hasn't been much testing, with the new VBR AAC setting I think 192 & 224 is worth a try.

 

[exkgb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany Even with my UE-10s and my 60 gig photo. It is hard for me to tell the difference between 192 AAC and 320 AAC. If space is an issue I would go with 256 AAC. Or var. bit rate AAC.

OOps, I was thinking of MP3s. I strongly dislike DRMed formats like AAC, wma. deosn't feel like its my own music anymore. I just rip all my CDs into 320kbps MP3s or VBR

 

[TooNice]

Is AAC definitely better than LAME if the player supports it? I rip in FLAC, but I am wondering what best to transcode to a portable player.

 

[exkgb]

AAC is definately better than MP3 in terms of quality per size. OGG, WMA AAC are all better than MP3 in this regard. But there are annoying DRM issues with WMA and AAC ( some people might not have a problem with it, so it could be only me ). I would rip all my music into OGG but not a lot of players support it yet. So I keep all my music in MP3.

 

[cheechoz]

Stick to EAC + Lame 3.90.3, the quality is indistinguishable from the original, IMHO. http://www.ubernet.org/index.php

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by exkgb OOps, I was thinking of MP3s. I strongly dislike DRMed formats like AAC, wma.

AAC is as DRMed as MP3, meaning it's not... unless the DRM is applied, which it now can be to both. Ripping with iTunes won't give you DRMed files.

Just to clear up another mis-perception... it's not owned by Apple either. AAC has more in common with MP3 than WMA, but it's better than both.

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx AAC is as DRMed as MP3, meaning it's not... unless the DRM is applied, which it now can be to both. Ripping with iTunes won't give you DRMed files. Just to clear up another mis-perception... it's not owned by Apple either. AAC has more in common with MP3 than WMA, but it's better than both.

I am going with blessingx on this one. AAC is reallly a good format to use. I don't believe this is sound quality issues with AAC as compared to LAME mp3. AAC is just a better compression.

As for th DRMs stuff. None of my music as any of it. So it isn't an issue.

Why I suggest 224/256 to safe place. I am only suggesting this using a better compression encoder like AAC. LAME mp3 needs to be at least 320 for good quality. This still isn't as good as AAC in 224.

 

[Spiritboxer]

Ok, I'm going with AAC at a bitrate to be decided later. Must admit I don't know what DRM is but thanks bigtime for everyone's input, it's been a huge help!

 

[discord]

192/224 AAC.

 

[exkgb]

ohh, I didin't know that about AAC

so does that mean you can play your AAC files on any computer, make copies of them, transfer them..etc..etc. just like regular mp3? Besides the Ipod, how's AAC support among other players?

 

[catscratch]

Can't comment on AAC vs. lame since I don't use AAC or iPods, but in terms of bitrate, I can readily tell the difference between FLAC and 320k mp3 with the UM2 and even more readily with the Stax SR-001. However, lossless on a small HD isn't practical, so... I would go with 320k of whatever lossy format you decide to use. 128 is junk, 192 has some soundstage but also has a lot of compression artifacts, 256 is a lot clearer but still sufferes from the occasional compression artifact, 320k is nice and open and artifacts are at a minimum, but you can still tell the difference between it and lossless in detail, soundstage, instrument placement, etc... 320k sounds washed out and congested next to lossless. Compression is very readily apparent with electronic music - a lot of high-pitched synths have a whistly, whining quality to them when compressed in lossy mp3. The degree of whininess decreases as bitrate goes up, but it doesn't fully go away even at 320. With lossless, though, everything is fine. You do, of course, have to know the music well enough that you know the tone of the synths by heart. Well, if this isn't nitpicking, I don't know what is, but we're perfectionists here, right?

But... why are you asking us? Do this: take one song that you know REALLY well, and rip it at 128, 192, 256, 320, and lossless in whatever codecs you're planning to use, and then listen to each. Chances are, you'll be able to hear where the sweet spot is.