#1
I convert my songs to the highest possible quality bu, i'm confused now:

Which has a higher quality, Variable Bitrate or Constant Bitrate (320kbps)?
#5
depends, a VBR mp3 thats between 196 amd 320 will sound better than a constant bitrate mp3 at 128, in your case it would be constant.


ETA 320 kbs mp3s are kind of pointless for most stuff, either get what you want in FLAC format if you have a goond enough set of audio equipment to need something super high quality.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#7
Constant @ 320 kbps is the only way to go friend. I have the entire Beatles and Radiohead discography set that way.
#8
Quote by eddiethehead888
If you want highest quality convert them to AIFF format, it's bitrate is 1441 and completely lossless


FLAC>AIFF
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#10
Quote by eddiethehead888
If you want highest quality convert them to AIFF format, it's bitrate is 1441 and completely lossless


You cant convert to AIFF and expect different quality. Its not like when you convert it, the quality suddenly increases. All you would be doing is changing file formats and if you represented that as a 1411 AIFF rip then that would a transcode and thats BAD news.

You have to rip the source content in a lossless format. FLAC is also higher quality than AIFF. Look it up.

EDIT: the key difference is that FLAC can be in 32 bit resolution and AIFF can be in 16 bit resolution. Also FLAC can be compressed up to eventually 80% with absolutely no loss in audio quality. AIFF cannot be compressed.
Last edited by alaub1491 at Nov 9, 2008,
#11
Quote by eddiethehead888
how so?


It's a less lossy format, FLAC is second only to wave format in terms of digital audio formats.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#12
Quote by alaub1491
You cant convert to AIFF and expect different quality. Its not like when you convert it, the quality suddenly increases. All you would be doing is changing file formats and if you represented that as a 1411 AIFF rip then that would a transcode and thats BAD news.

You have to rip the source content in a lossless format. FLAC is also higher quality than AIFF. Look it up.


Yea, I was assuming that he was ripping these songs of CD's...

Can iTunes do FLAC converts?

Quote by Kid_Thorazine
It's a less lossy format, FLAC is second only to wave format in terms of digital audio formats.


Wait... then .wav is the least lossy? I have never heard of that...I use AIFF because some famous Jazz producer said that it's his favorite lossless format (yea, i'm a tool)
Last edited by eddiethehead888 at Nov 9, 2008,
#13
Quote by eddiethehead888

Can iTunes do FLAC converts?


I don't think so, but iTunes sucks anyway. If you have an iPod jailbreak it and use another program to sync it, if not, you have no excuse for using such crap audio software.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#14
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
I don't think so, but iTunes sucks anyway. If you have an iPod jailbreak it and use another program to sync it, if not, you have no excuse for using such crap audio software.


Explain, I'm intrigued... ( i have teh ipodz)

(btw- what's wrong with iTunes, it seems to get the job done)
Last edited by eddiethehead888 at Nov 9, 2008,
#16
Quote by eddiethehead888
Explain, I'm intrigued...

(btw- what's wrong with iTunes, it seems to get the job done)


iTunes just doesn't have a good audio engine, if you use something like foobar you can A/B it with iTunes and theres a notable improvement over iTunes. As for the jailbreaking thing, look up rockbox it's a replacement for the iPods firmware and it is a vast improvement.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#17
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
iTunes just doesn't have a good audio engine, if you use something like foobar you can A/B it with iTunes and theres a notable improvement over iTunes. As for the jailbreaking thing, look up rockbox it's a replacement for the iPods firmware and it is a vast improvement.


Thanks man!

a googling i go!
#18
The best choice is V0 VBR ripped properly with Exact Audio Copy. It's identical to 320 CBR in quality but saves around 20 MB an album. Besides if you have a V0 rip you know it's been done properly, that's not always the case with 320 CBR.

I have the majority of my 120 GB collection in V0, and if it were in 320 it would take up around an extra 20 GB's.
Quote by GiantRaven
I'm sure theres a Nigerian king just waiting for you to reply to his email
#19
Quote by Chimaira
The best choice is V0 VBR ripped properly with Exact Audio Copy. It's identical to 320 CBR in quality but saves around 20 MB an album. Besides if you have a V0 rip you know it's been done properly, that's not always the case with 320 CBR.

I have the majority of my 120 GB collection in V0, and if it were in 320 it would take up around an extra 20 GB's.


Chances are you should get v2

Its really hard to tell the difference between v0 and 128

http://mp3ornot.com/

listen.
#20
Quote by Caparisoner
you would never tell the ****ing difference

if you have subwoofers you would. which i do. And i can tell the diff. Even a 320 mp3 looses low end and high end. if u're going for small file size but still good quality WMA isn't bad
#21
Quote by alaub1491
Chances are you should get v2

Its really hard to tell the difference between v0 and 128

http://mp3ornot.com/

listen.


I got the answer right away...