Favorite mp3 rip level??

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: sandeep108

Unless you're an acoustic engineer or have otherwise superior hearing, 192 LAME CBR will do just fine for either of those.

Well maybe everybody will pounce on me, but I tried flac last night and still could hear the compression on the flac audio file. I tried quality 2 also (only 30% compressed) instead of default 5 (50% compressed), but still could hear a difference, when comparing playing back the different files. But yes, flac sounded much better than any mp3. Since it is lossless, I presume it will restore the wav file to its original state (I will try it out and see) so may be good for archiving / backing up your CD collection. But I think I will stick to no compression and rip to wav using EAC and add more HDDs as required at least for my PC/HT setup.

As far as portable devices and lower end speaker systems go, I guess flac at 50% would be superior simply because you can always restore the original or use it for lossy compression into any file format you need without further loss of quality, as remarked by a previous poster.

Ya I am going to jump on you because...unless you set it up wrong...its called lossless for a reason lol. It should be the exact same as the original CD wav.

You can try some other lossless codecs to see if you still notice a difference such as .ape or wma lossless. But I really think you are hearing a placebo effect.

 

[smthmlk]

i highly suggest using the recommended LAME version and settings as listed at hydrogenaudio.org :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
... be sure to actually sit down and read this, especially the '# Quick Start' section.
... Lame 3.97beta2, with the settings: -V2 --vbr-new ....appears to be your best bet, but try the lower -Vx settings (-V5 --vbr-new, for example) and see if you can hear a difference.

If you look around the Wiki on hydrogenaudio.org, they have links to setting up EAC to work with Lame with the settings you desire for Lame, tagging, etc. I would read around that site a lot before looking at the mixed opinions here and running with one Happy reading!

 

[SnoMunke]

Originally posted by: smthmlk
i highly suggest using the recommended LAME version and settings as listed at hydrogenaudio.org :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
... be sure to actually sit down and read this, especially the '# Quick Start' section.
... Lame 3.97beta2, with the settings: -V2 --vbr-new ....appears to be your best bet, but try the lower -Vx settings (-V5 --vbr-new, for example) and see if you can hear a difference.

If you look around the Wiki on hydrogenaudio.org, they have links to setting up EAC to work with Lame with the settings you desire for Lame, tagging, etc. I would read around that site a lot before looking at the mixed opinions here and running with one Happy reading!

MP3 is an obsolete codec...why do people keep trying to "improve" it...

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: SnoMunke

Originally posted by: smthmlk
i highly suggest using the recommended LAME version and settings as listed at hydrogenaudio.org :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
... be sure to actually sit down and read this, especially the '# Quick Start' section.
... Lame 3.97beta2, with the settings: -V2 --vbr-new ....appears to be your best bet, but try the lower -Vx settings (-V5 --vbr-new, for example) and see if you can hear a difference.

If you look around the Wiki on hydrogenaudio.org, they have links to setting up EAC to work with Lame with the settings you desire for Lame, tagging, etc. I would read around that site a lot before looking at the mixed opinions here and running with one Happy reading!

MP3 is an obsolete codec...why do people keep trying to "improve" it...

for when you need to put it on a MP3 player that supports on mp3 format?

 

[imported_rod]

Originally posted by: modedepe
I rip at 192 lame so I don't use too much space.

SAME. Great quality @ a decent size.

RoD

 

[orangat]

192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

How about you try it instead of claiming "snobbery"?

The reasons to go to FLAC are obvious:

1. You have a perfect backup of you CD if you Lose, scratch, or leave it somewhere where you can't rip it again.

2. You can edit the files, cut and compress them to a different format without have applied "double compression"

3. On home theater systems/high end headphones/possible car audio systems(don't have a nice one to test) there is a difference if you have a good ear. Some songs are more noticeable than others.

So even if you don't agree with 3, there are still 2 other reasons that are perfectly valid. You could bring up "but it takes up so much space!!!!". I would say to that, like we care in this day of age. I can go out and buy a 300 gig hard drive for $130 or so. That can hold 10,000 FLAC encoded songs or so.

I have a 120 gig drive and a 300 gig drive. Over spring break I ripped all my CD's to FLAC format for all three reasoned mentioned. I STILL have 310 gigs free or so and thats with OS and games and such.

Now if I want to put them on my mp3 player all I have to do is choose the format of my personaly preference and use dBpoweramp to convert them. This hardly takes any time and I end up with a file just as if I had ripped it from the CD in that format originally.

 

[SnoMunke]

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

Since I was the first to post about using a lossless format, I will take your comment to be directed at me. Fine. I am a snob...and elitist. So that means you are beneath me. Take your skeptic attitude and troll somewhere else.

 

[Trey22]

Originally posted by: SnoMunke

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

Since I was the first to post about using a lossless format, I will take your comment to be directed at me. Fine. I am a snob...and elitist. So that means you are beneath me. Take your skeptic attitude and troll somewhere else.

Noob fight!

I know after all those Pearl Jam concerts my ear can't pick up all the nuances of a song , so 192 VBR for me.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: SnoMunke

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

Since I was the first to post about using a lossless format, I will take your comment to be directed at me. Fine. I am a snob...and elitist. So that means you are beneath me. Take your skeptic attitude and troll somewhere else.

Actually I was guess we're both snobs

 

[ribbon13]

I'm such a snob, I won't buy a portable player unless it supports FLAC. Take dat!

 

[KoolDrew]

http://www.chrismyden.com/bestmp3guide.php

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: sandeep108

Unless you're an acoustic engineer or have otherwise superior hearing, 192 LAME CBR will do just fine for either of those.

Well maybe everybody will pounce on me, but I tried flac last night and still could hear the compression on the flac audio file. I tried quality 2 also (only 30% compressed) instead of default 5 (50% compressed), but still could hear a difference, when comparing playing back the different files. But yes, flac sounded much better than any mp3. Since it is lossless, I presume it will restore the wav file to its original state (I will try it out and see) so may be good for archiving / backing up your CD collection. But I think I will stick to no compression and rip to wav using EAC and add more HDDs as required at least for my PC/HT setup.

As far as portable devices and lower end speaker systems go, I guess flac at 50% would be superior simply because you can always restore the original or use it for lossy compression into any file format you need without further loss of quality, as remarked by a previous poster.

Ya I am going to jump on you because...unless you set it up wrong...its called lossless for a reason lol. It should be the exact same as the original CD wav.

You can try some other lossless codecs to see if you still notice a difference such as .ape or wma lossless. But I really think you are hearing a placebo effect.

Haha, exactly. It should sound just like the original.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: SnoMunke

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

Since I was the first to post about using a lossless format, I will take your comment to be directed at me. Fine. I am a snob...and elitist. So that means you are beneath me. Take your skeptic attitude and troll somewhere else.

Actually I was guess we're both snobs

The important consideration is that 256-320k/lossless for typical car audio and portables systems is overkill. The OP did mention it wasn't for archival or serious listening.

If you look at my link, trained listeners with good ears have trouble telling 128kbit samples from the cd quality in some cases on an expensive 30,000DM system.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I'm such a snob, I won't buy a portable player unless it supports FLAC. Take dat!

Since you suggested 320k LAME for voice/telephone quality, I'm not surprised.

Anyone who knows the least bit about telecommunications will know that it is overkill in the extreme.

 

[jdkick]

My preference - MP3 @ 256k CBR.

I used to create mp3's @ 192k but after doing some stereo upgrades in my car, I noticed that 256k had better low end and clearer high's (even @ 192k, symbals were noticably splashy). Hearing the difference depends on the speakers/headphones and amp... they all impact the frequency that are actually reproduced.

As mentioned by Duvie, I use CBR because not all hardware will support VBR.

If you're just listening to these in the gym on earbud style headphones, then I wouldn't go crazy... 192k or maybe 160k is probably sufficient. IMO, 128k is certainly not "cd quality".

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: orangat
Since you suggested 320k LAME for voice/telephone quality, I'm not surprised.

Anyone who knows the least bit about telecommunications will know that it is overkill in the extreme.

I am fully aware of that. I do it for shits and giggles and have very little pure voice stuff saved to fuss over. Change the batteries man...

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: orangat
Since you suggested 320k LAME for voice/telephone quality, I'm not surprised.

Anyone who knows the least bit about telecommunications will know that it is overkill in the extreme.

I am fully aware of that. I do it for shits and giggles and have very little pure voice stuff saved to fuss over. Change the batteries man...

****** and giggles? You stated 320kbit for voice quality which is plain ridiculous.
Time to stop embarassing yourself.

 

[bigboxes]

Haha! orangat has got this one right for sure. There is no problem in stating a preference, but insisting that peeps here should rip in nothing less than lossless or they will endure the toture of music without clarity is surely the rant of the audiophile snob. Yeah, my ears are trashed from years of loud rock concerts, but when ripping to your hard drive and/or portable music device it is always a compromise between quality and size. The idea is to have something that sounds good and is portable/doesn't take up a lot of space. If we are just concerned about sound quality then sure lossless it is. Better yet, just play the original source.

 

[bigboxes]

triple post

 

[bigboxes]

Triple post

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: SnoMunke

Originally posted by: orangat
192vbr gives extremely good quality. I'd be very skeptical of any advise to go lossless or very high bit rates especially so on car audio and portables. Its probably snobbery instead of any real justification.

Since I was the first to post about using a lossless format, I will take your comment to be directed at me. Fine. I am a snob...and elitist. So that means you are beneath me. Take your skeptic attitude and troll somewhere else.

Actually I was guess we're both snobs

The important consideration is that 256-320k/lossless for typical car audio and portables systems is overkill. The OP did mention it wasn't for archival or serious listening.

If you look at my link, trained listeners with good ears have trouble telling 128kbit samples from the cd quality in some cases on an expensive 30,000DM system.

Um...I have no problem telling 128 from lossless. Now get up to 256 or higher and then it gets difficult.

Haha! orangat has got this one right for sure. There is no problem in stating a preference, but insisting that peeps here should rip in nothing less than lossless or they will endure the toture of music without clarity is surely the rant of the audiophile snob. Yeah, my ears are trashed from years of loud rock concerts, but when ripping to your hard drive and/or portable music device it is always a compromise between quality and size. The idea is to have something that sounds good and is portable/doesn't take up a lot of space. If we are just concerned about sound quality then sure lossless it is. Better yet, just play the original source.

I am not insisting that the OP rip in lossless. I just think its the easiest and most time efficient way to do things. I have admitted that 256Kbps and anything higher sounds VERY close to a lossless recording in blind listening tests. My only argument for ripping in lossless is simple the ease that it allows for changing the format later on.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

I use 192kbps minimum. Most of my music is around 256kbps.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I am fully aware of that. I do it for shits and giggles and have very little pure voice stuff saved to fuss over. Change the batteries man...

****** and giggles? You stated 320kbit for voice quality which is plain ridiculous.
Time to stop embarassing yourself.

I have a grand total of 3 CDs worth of mostly voice. OMG, I'm running low on my 3.2 terabytes! I'm sure even 128k is overkill since it doesn't have musical qualities. I never said anyone has to use 320k for voice, necessary, or anything like that. Now STFU nublette, and change the batteries in your sarcasm meter.

Originally posted by: bigboxes
Haha! orangat has got this one right for sure. There is no problem in stating a preference, but insisting that peeps here should rip in nothing less than lossless or they will endure the toture of music without clarity is surely the rant of the audiophile snob. Yeah, my ears are trashed from years of loud rock concerts, but when ripping to your hard drive and/or portable music device it is always a compromise between quality and size. The idea is to have something that sounds good and is portable/doesn't take up a lot of space. If we are just concerned about sound quality then sure lossless it is. Better yet, just play the original source.

And maybe if you hadn't abused speedballs so much you wouldn't click reply 3 times. What an ironic peanut gallery.

If one designed a portable player around the Seagate Momentus 5400.3, you could store ~480CDs in FLAC.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I am fully aware of that. I do it for shits and giggles and have very little pure voice stuff saved to fuss over. Change the batteries man...

****** and giggles? You stated 320kbit for voice quality which is plain ridiculous.
Time to stop embarassing yourself.

I have a grand total of 3 CDs worth of mostly voice. OMG, I'm running low on my 3.2 terabytes! I'm sure even 128k is overkill since it doesn't have musical qualities. I never said anyone has to use 320k for voice, necessary, or anything like that. Now STFU nublette, and change the batteries in your sarcasm meter.

Originally posted by: bigboxes
Haha! orangat has got this one right for sure. There is no problem in stating a preference, but insisting that peeps here should rip in nothing less than lossless or they will endure the toture of music without clarity is surely the rant of the audiophile snob. Yeah, my ears are trashed from years of loud rock concerts, but when ripping to your hard drive and/or portable music device it is always a compromise between quality and size. The idea is to have something that sounds good and is portable/doesn't take up a lot of space. If we are just concerned about sound quality then sure lossless it is. Better yet, just play the original source.

And maybe if you hadn't abused speedballs so much you wouldn't click reply 3 times. What an ironic peanut gallery.

If one designed a portable player around the Seagate Momentus 5400.3, you could store ~480CDs in FLAC.

LOL

:: Passes a :beer: to ribbon13 ::