[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/10/13]
At 3:22 +0200 2006.10.13, A. Pagaltzis wrote: >* Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 02:15]: >> But really, I'm of the "can't hear anything better than 192 >> mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a stretch. > >So am I. I'd say it's not a stretch at all, however I can only >really tell when I compare files directly. Mostly it's the >percussions that give it away. But in any case I'm not much of an >audiophile. I just obsess over quality of my data in general. I'd >prefer to avoid any conversion processes whatsoever. I can only occasionally tell the difference between, say, 192 and 320 kbps MP3. Usually on, like you say, percussion. Especially on classic jazz, also in some classical music. But it depends on the track. Sometimes it's easier. AAC works a lot better than MP3 to get smaller bitrate files that sound good. But I eventually gave up trying to find the "best" bitrate I could. Too much work reripping something when it came out poorly. But the other thing is, as I said, simply a matter of being able to recompress later. I actually do rerip my entire collection to 128 kbps AAC for putting on the 60 GB iPod. A perl script (of course) compares two iTunes libraries on two computers, and updates one to be like the other, converting all the lossless files as necessary. Someday when the iPod has some better format available, I just change a line in the script, delete the old converted files, and boom. And I have the entire main library mirrored to an external FW drive, too. Mmmmm backups. -- Chris Nandor pudge@xxxxx.xxx http://pudge.net/ Open Source Technology Group pudge@xxxx.xxx http://ostg.com/There's stuff above here
Generated at 10:01 on 14 Oct 2006 by mariachi 0.52