Members ledvedder Posted November 11, 2012 Members Share Posted November 11, 2012 I've always used Razorlame set at 192kbps. I've recently been reading some things about using VBR for better quality. I have a ton of mp3's on my iPhone, so I'm always looking for best quality at the smallest size. Curious to find out what others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eschatologist Posted November 11, 2012 Members Share Posted November 11, 2012 LAME at 320k, always using slowest (highest quality) conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nakedzen Posted November 11, 2012 Members Share Posted November 11, 2012 flac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KCTigerChief Posted November 11, 2012 Members Share Posted November 11, 2012 320 or VBR. ONLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted November 11, 2012 Members Share Posted November 11, 2012 Originally Posted by KCTigerChief 320 or VBR.ONLY. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Spoon Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 V0 VBR at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ledvedder Posted November 12, 2012 Author Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 I have a hard drive full of mp3's at 320 kbps. Will I gain or lose anything (size and quality) if I encode them to a different format or bitrate? I like to get the files a bit smaller to add to my iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nerine Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'd honestly rather they took up more space and sounded better. MP3 sounds gash as it is without encoding them to be even smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 I read somewhere that 224 VBR is 99% transparent compared to CBR 320. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sahlomonic Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 There is a certain point where the bitrate is nearly indistinguishable to the human ear, but I'm not certain what it is. VBR is really only useful for trying to save space. It lowers the bitrate at points of the song that have dead air or not a lot going in in the frequency spectrum, and keeps the higher bitrate through the main parts of the song. Someone fact check me here . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members newholland Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu I read somewhere that 224 VBR is 99% transparent compared to CBR 320. What do you guys think? meh. what's 99% transparent mean? that sounds like bad unsubstantiatable marketing blab to me.with rock music, you can get away with lower bitrates.. but why bother? i rip everything to 320kbps as slow as i can, and don't mess with VBR. i've heard vbr is better, for some odd reason, but if you don't need to truncate stuff, why would you? just use more space.. {censored}.. disk space is practically free, and i have a {censored}ton of music on my ipod, and it's STILL not full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 320 constant, good enough for anything occasional use. Dirty confession, I don't have the ears anymore to distinguish it from a cd, so .mp3s for me... 192-220 I hear a difference with 320, so why encode lower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 Originally Posted by tech21man 320 constant, good enough for anything occasional use. Dirty confession, I don't have the ears anymore to distinguish it from a cd, so .mp3s for me...192-220 I hear a difference with 320, so why encode lower? I'm fine with 192, though I don't have an expensive stereo. If I did and could tell a difference I'd try to go with 320, but for my needs 192 saves space and works perfectly fine. It might be worth comparing a track or two of each 192 and 320 and see if you can notice a worthwhile difference before investing in the time and storage space to change it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tech21man Posted November 12, 2012 Members Share Posted November 12, 2012 I understand what you are saying. I guess I should point out that there isn't a world of difference as it is for example when going up from 128 but if I had to describe it, I'd say that the 192 ones sound more compressed and smaller than the 320 constant through a good set of headphones for example and a bit less clear on the cymballs for example on a drum track. Not much but it is there on the A/B. The 128 ones...swoosh all over the place on that area! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.