?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I should have done this ages ago...

I've got a bunch of stuff in iTunes that was ripped at 320kbps. Why? I don't know. There's not really any point with mp3 of using a higher bit-rate than 192kbps, and 128kbps variable bit-rate with a high quality setting (that's 128 min, using higher rates when the amount of data merits it) is good enough to satisfy my hearing.

With bitrates that high to start out, it's worth down-sampling. That's going to save quite a few gigs on my iPod.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
jovino
Oct. 5th, 2006 06:59 am (UTC)
I tend to disagree.

I DJ on my laptop, and anything under 256k I start to hear the sound degredation. I try to use a minimum setting 256k VBR on everything, but it taxes the DJ software a lot too. 192, you will start to hear the highs go. 128 its in a can. Below that, it's crap.

Even with my poor hearing, I do notice the subtle differences.
bovil
Oct. 6th, 2006 02:01 am (UTC)
If I lived in an acoustically perfect world and used $400 headphones I might go for higher.

MP3 algorithms and codecs are improving, though, and 128 VBR High (which gives me an average bitrate between 140 and 160) is giving me sound quality that's comparable to 192-fixed (which is what I used to rip at).

Tuesday I had only a little over 1gb free on my iPod. I just recovered nearly 5gb of space on my iPod, and that's with downsampling the 320kbps files and only about 1/3 of the 256kbps files. I'm not going to touch the stuff that's already at 192, there's not enough savings to make it worthwhile.
jovino
Oct. 6th, 2006 09:26 am (UTC)
mmm, $400 headphones. drool. :)

waht am I saying? I don't even own an iPod. Oh, the inhumanity!
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

February 2014
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek