Best quality MP3s

There's no question that .shns are better quality than mp3s, but it's been my observation that the files are anywhere from 5-10 times the size of an mp3 file.

In other words, you get what you pay for...

 

I have downloaded an album (legitamate) made of 128kbps mp3s, and it sounds very impressive. One, without hearing the source, would never guess that they are mp3s!

 

Oddly enough, that site is down. I hope it's temporary, because there's some really interesting information there.

 

r3mix is a couple of years out of date. Try checking out www.hydrogenaudio.org. They picked up where r3mix left off.

 

Re: IPOD

Me too! I am a bit pissed that the new version has a docking station with a LINE OUT jack, which is absent on the original. I have the 4 year warranty from Best Buy, so I am sure I will have to bring it back at some point....

I don't have a real high end system, but it is very difficult to be able to tell the difference between higher quality MP3s and CDs. In a blind test, I am sure that most that complain about MP3s would not be able to tell the difference.

I did some testing with ripping with AAC and MP3 last night and it seemed like AAC had a tad bit more bass and treble on the one track I tried out. It seems like newer material at lower bitrates tends to sound bad because it is mastered so loud, it effects stuff like the cymbals and makes them shimmery sounding. LAME does a good job at 128kbps, which is the "standard" that Apple is now using for it's new music store system in the AAC format and they claim it is superior. Maybe they are referring to different encoders in general.

 

Yea, LAME does a very good job, especially at 320. The only problem is the file size.

There is something new called "Hyrogen audio" that I have to check out.
I've built an Audio only server thats going to contain everything I have , in digital format for Cd making, file sharing, IPOD listening, netowrk transfering to my other pcs, etc.

Since I intend to rip something like 600 Cds, I need a fast, great quality encoder that makes small file sizes, and that is compatible with every MP3 player out ther, or at least 90% of them. Its a tall order. If I cant find anything else, I'm planning on doing my whole collection at 320 kbs with LAME since I know the quality will be good enough to make CDs from and or hear any real difference.

Mikey

 

WOW! That's a lot of hard drive space. Supposedly, this with this AAC format, 128kbps, is supposed to put you in the ballpark of 192kbps in MP3 format. Not sure of all the technical stuff, but I could swear I read somewhere that 192 in the AAC format would almost be considered overkill by some (320kbps in MP3, not looking for a fight here....).

I have a Windows IPOD, so I can't use AAC right now.

 

For listening on the computer I rip with LAME to at least 256kbps constant bit rate, full stereo channels.

I a/b a downloaded 320kbps MP3 of a Stones song with the remastered CD and couldn't tell the difference. I have a mid-fi sytem though.

I playback with WinAmp which I think has a crisper, clearer sound than Windows Media Player. WinAmp is also much less of a resource hog.

 

AAC at 128kbps sounds much better than a MP3 at the same rate or even a little above, and the file size is smaller. I am putting songs on my Mac G4 into iTunes in the AAC format at 192kbps.

PAT

 

I was under the impression that AAC was considerably smaller, but I did a few tests and they were virtually the same size at CBR.

Isn't AAC part of the new MP4 format? I thought I read that it was and MP4 is smaller than MP3 and supposedly better.