[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miranon /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is better, mp3 320 kbps or mp3 v0?

V0 imo.
Cause its highly tuned, and don't waste unneeded bits where its not needed. Aka smaller file size

 

[Dublo7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif V0 imo. Cause its highly tuned, and don't waste unneeded bits where its not needed. Aka smaller file size

By V0, you mean Variable Bitrate, right?

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dublo7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif By V0, you mean Variable Bitrate, right?

Yes, I did not mention that I were talking about LAME V0...

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dublo7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif By V0, you mean Variable Bitrate, right?

Actually, the -V n command line switch specifies the quality level (vs file size) for VBR encoding. I've seen this referred to in many posts, and I'm not ashamed (OK, I'm a little ashamed) to admit that I had no idea what this meant. So I downloaded EAC and checked the help file. According to the LAME encoder help file:


================================================== =====================
VBR quality setting
================================================== =====================
-V n

n = 0...9. Specifies the value of VBR_q.
default = 4, highest quality = 0, smallest files = 9

Using -V 6 or higher (lower quality) is NOT RECOMMENDED.
ABR will produce better results.


How is VBR_q used?

The value of VBR_q influences two basic parameters of LAME's psycho
acoustics:
a) the absolute threshold of hearing
b) the sample to noise ratio
The lower the VBR_q value the lower the injected quantization noise
will be.

*NOTE* No psy-model is perfect, so there can often be distortion which
is audible even though the psy-model claims it is not! Thus using a
small minimum bitrate can result in some aggressive compression and
audible distortion even with -V 0. Thus using -V 0 does not sound
better than a fixed 256 kbps encoding. For example: suppose in the 1 kHz
frequency band the psy-model claims 20 dB of distortion will not be
detectable by the human ear, so LAME VBR-0 will compress that
frequency band as much as possible and introduce at most 20 dB of
distortion. Using a fixed 256 kbps framesize, LAME could end up
introducing only 2 dB of distortion. If the psy-model was correct,
they will both sound the same. If the psy-model was wrong, the VBR-0
result can sound worse.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really haven't paid much attention to the granular details of MP3 encoding, since I only use MP3s purchased from eMusic, which obviously show up pre-ripped. My own ripping is either to FLAC or ATRAC (Don't tase me, dude) but I'm intrigued by the options offered by EAC. I'm definitely going to use it for extraction, and, who knows, maybe I'll end up drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[Samjones]

Might be worth noting that ipods can only process 320kbps, anything higher than that is wasted on an ipod.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samjones /img/forum/go_quote.gif Might be worth noting that ipods can only process 320kbps, anything higher than that is wasted on an ipod.

And what evidence do you offer for that? No offense, but that sounds like complete bunk.

 

[dadozen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you always use png/bmp images on your computer or do you use jpeg, a compressed image format?

Do you enjoy looking at those photos as much as you enjoy listening to your music library wirh your high-end equipments? That's the point.

I honestly don't see a point discussing all this for such a long time.

Everyone is free to hear their music however they want to. Personally, I have the same opinion as Skylab. Knowing that I might be not listening to my musics how they are supposed to sound really disturbes me. So I use lossless all the time with my CDs.

But if someone doesn't want to do that, either because owns a small capacity DAP, or because thinks it's not worthy, I don't see a problem. Just be happy, whichever your decision is.

What I just don't get is why so many head-fi'ers want to make what they hear and what they do the best and only options. And they still try to make another head-fi'ers to think as they do.

 

[Malakei]

Its not that the lossless format sounds so much better then the 320mp3, its that often, the people that have taken the time to rip cds to lossless are more careful and usualy your lossless downloads are of suprerior quality. Swap your FLACs and ALACs over to 320 with some care and im sure youll get comparable sound to anyone but the most meticulous ears and equipment. Just FYI i much prefer my lossless albums to my mp3 ones. But then again, im picky as ******.

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joay /img/forum/go_quote.gif All I can say is "why lossy"? Currently we have 160GB HD players and 32GB flash players. We're seeing "lossy" become irrelevant right before our eyes. 3 years from now MP3's will be irrelevant. 6 years from now MP3's will be obsolete. I will revive this thread in 2013 and i'll have a laugh while listening to my 800 CD's of lossless files on random (using only 20% of my 1.5Terabyte Media player) Maybe someday itunes will allow us to trade in our garbage 128Kbs MP3's for lossless (with an $.89 fee per song of course). Attachment 2877

Very well said. As memory becomes cheaper and cheaper, the need for file compression will become irrelevant. It almost is.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

I can definitely hear differences between mp3 and flac, specially on the top end and bottom end.

Also encoding to flac is a lot faster than encoding to mp3.

Also 320k mp3s (constant rate) are pretty big in size...not much smaller than the flac file of the same song.

 

[Zombie_X]

[rant] RANT ABOUT IPOD AND LOSSLESS.....

Lossless on an Ipod is still a lot better than standard 320kbps MP3 files, but Ipod's sound chip/cpu can't handle all of that and the result just doesn't yield enough improvements to warrant use of WAV/M4A/FLAC. Basically the file is [played, just a little degraded/downscaled in quality.

I really just don't see why someone would rip everything to lossless and play it through an Ipod. Since Ipod audio output is less than stellar (IMHO). Also using lossless decreases battery charge by over 50% and I want every bit of that battery. You'd think people looking for good audio would get a decent transport of some sort instead of using an Ipod.....

Sorry... [/rant]

This however is my honest opinion. This is what I truly believe. The Ipod output is good, but nowhere near that of a PC.

I know Zune with lossless is actually better than an Ipod, but still why bother? Is a decreased battery charge all worth the extra few bits of music you get on a little portable? Meh!!

I need to stop this ranting.

 

[Calexico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombie_X /img/forum/go_quote.gif [rant] RANT ABOUT IPOD AND LOSSLESS..... Lossless on an Ipod is still a lot better than standard 320kbps MP3 files, but Ipod's sound chip/cpu can't handle all of that and the result just doesn't yield enough improvements to warrant use of WAV/M4A/FLAC. Basically the file is [played, just a little degraded/downscaled in quality. I really just don't see why someone would rip everything to lossless and play it through an Ipod. Since Ipod audio output is less than stellar (IMHO). Also using lossless decreases battery charge by over 50% and I want every bit of that battery. You'd think people looking for good audio would get a decent transport of some sort instead of using an Ipod..... Sorry... [/rant] This however is my honest opinion. This is what I truly believe. The Ipod output is good, but nowhere near that of a PC. I know Zune with lossless is actually better than an Ipod, but still why bother? Is a decreased battery charge all worth the extra few bits of music you get on a little portable? Meh!! I need to stop this ranting.

iPod's sound chip is very good, isn't it??? The problem is the headphone out. Hence the popularity of LODs.

 

[Skylab]

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the iPod's DAC itself - it is capable of excellent sound when accessed properly. Not only that, but there is now the Wadia iTransport which bypasses the iPod's DAC completely, and more products like that are coming.

 

[Detritusdave]

I don't understand why some people get so upset about this issue. If a person can't hear a difference between, e.g. mp3 320kbs or flac then that's great for you. But there definitely seems some egocentrism going around here.... i.e. "I can't hear a difference, so WHY are you saying you can?".... no offence to posters intended, but as there ARE actual differences between e.g. mp3 320kbs and flac, whether easily discernible or not, it is not entirely implausible that some people actually DO hear the differences. And maybe a large percentage of this is placebo.... but why do you care??

 

[krmathis]

For the same reason as on the stationary.
Lossless = no data loss, and hence no loss in sound quality.

Quite simple.