What Bitrate do YOU Encode in?

[Raven]

Personally I think that the 128kbps file is out of date. I beleive that we should abandon it and switch over to 192kbps and above.

What do you think?

[SimbaK2K]

320kbps ogg vorbis baby yea!!! Altho thats only for my encodings. Most net music is 192 and mp3 :\

[RecalcitrantX]

192/mp3 -- I really don't notice a considerable increase in quality at any higher bitrates...and if there is, it's not worth the extra HD space that it takes.

[RJ5500]

If it's Mp3 files, I encode in 224k VBR (with the Lame 3.92 encoder)

If it's Mp4 files, I use Nero 6's "audiophile" setting for ~256k VBR quality.

I encode OGG in 400k+ quality. I don't use OGG much.

[Ea$y_E]

500kbps - ogg
or
64 - 320 mp3 vbr

it really depends on the type of music though.
i found that the vbr mp3s tend to emphasize more the highs where as the oggs emphasize the lows

[lordpake]

When ripping mp3's I use 192 vbr...seems to be good enough

[Pebbles100]

I don't really care for 128, and I wish people would stop using it too. I like 192, that's perfect for my use.

[Contra]

Lossless "ape" format only....

[mr.jip]

ape, arent those files like...well big. Anyway yea i use 192kbps

[origin]

I use 192 kbps VBR lame. good size and quality.not awesome not horrible so somewhere in the middle that I find to be satisfactory.

l8

[zaphodiv]

128kbps

There is 60dBa of noise in here from the pile of puters and my drives are allways full.

[XtraNtnse]

.wav -1411kbps

[shawners]

one thing 128 got so popular, is the file size isnt too big, and back then MODEMs was slow, the hArd drive was SMALL.. Their was just useless to have big mp3 files, now todays age its greater to have a 320 kbys or 384 variable byte rate =)

[freeloaders]

i use itunes for windows and rip my songs in AAC format.

[Snifer]

CDex: Lame VBR 4 (min: 32 kbps, max: 320 kbps)

[eilveron_esp]

Ogg quality 6 or MP3 VBR 192.
Anything above that and it´s difficult to believe it will make a difference in quality. 320kbps? Come on man....
BTW, your poll is flawed. Simply because something is VBR doesn´t mean you can´t say give a bitrate as well.

[ducttapeBigSexy]

I personally use Exact Audio Copy to rip and encode (well, it uses LAME, but it configures it for me), so it's super high quality VBRs all the way.

www.exactaudiocopy.de

[phalkon30]

Snifer has close to my setup. CDex, Lame VBR 2, min32, max 320. Alt -preset standard.

Is there any real advantage to VBR 4 over 2?

[Kevin33134]

Exact Audio Copy V0.9 beta 4 with secure mode on for ripping. LAME 3.90.3 using the --alt-preset standard switch for encoding. (VBR)

[MonkeyMEN RULE]

Exact Audio Copy V0.9 beta 4 with secure mode on for ripping. LAME 3.90.3 using the --alt-preset standard switch for encoding. (VBR)

That's exactly what I encode in....simply the best.

[notbob]

i like 4kbps

it really catches the nuances of a fine piece of music

i like vbr really, but i get shn because those freaks have good shit, even if i don't agree with their formattical fanatacism

[serrebi101]

I incode stuff at alt precet 128. It sounds really good, not like most 128, ug..

[phalkon30]

128 CBR and 128 VBR will sound the same if encoded with the same codec. All vbr really does is decrease the size.

[Potato]

I'm fine with 192/mp3. Some get the privilege of being ripped into ogg. Last I knew (haven't checked in a while), Nero (that's what I use) didn't have a thingie for ogg files. My mind really isn't all here now. :(

[Contra]

Sure "ape" files are bigger... But like "Coke", they are the real thing...

[Snifer]

128 CBR and 128 VBR will sound the same if encoded with the same codec. All vbr really does is decrease the size.
That's not true. If you're enconding at 128 VBR, and in some part of the song you need only 96 kbps and encode it at that bitrate, then you can encode other part of the song at 160 kbps keeping the 128kbps average (which means better quality in the same file size).

For your question about VBR 2 over VBR 4, the difference is the average bitrate. Here's a copy-paste from CDex's help file:
"Thus VBR_0 will yield the best quality (but the largest file size) while VBR_9 will have less sound quality but the file size will be the smallest. The recommended variable bit-rate option is VBR_4."

[phalkon30]

Well, I guess I learned something new, thanks for the correction.

[MusikBeatz23]

I use 192kbps it's good enough for me... It's good quality and takes up less space...

[ASUmusicMAN]

I'm a 192/mp3 guy...if it ain't broke why fix it

[WRFan]

I only use 500kb ogg. but if I want to burn, I leave the music in wav format, 'cause winoncd can't "ogg" :).

[origin]

a wav file is just an uncompressed HUGE audio file. why use that if you can get the same sound quality with a hq mp3 :D and save some space in the mean time.

l8

[isus]

i haven't ripped anything in a while, so i take what i can find.

[jabba|xtra]

MP3 - --alt-preset standard w/ LAME 3.90.3
OGG - -q6
MPC - --quality 6 --xlevel
The above are what i use for my own rips, and I always use EAC to rip.

When I download stuff, if nothing else is available i go for 192. Otherwise vbr or whatever nice file is floating around is what i take.

[neoufo51]

Anybody still using CBR at any bitrate is a complete fricking moron. I hate anybody who still seeds these kinda files into more p2p networks.

Listen to JabbaXtra. Its the way to go. AAC is also good if you use the VBR presets with Nero.

[RJ5500]

If you want to see 128k CBR files aplenty, try searching for just about anything using Kazaa.

It sucks.

[isus]

If you want to see 128k CBR files aplenty, try searching for just about anything using Kazaa.

It sucks.
that's why i stopped using kazaa ;)

[LordNIkon]

Net Files 128k or higher
Encoding MPC - --quality 10 --xlevel

[DainBramaged]

Hydrogenaudio is the place to be.

[Nothingface5384]

most the files i dl are at 192 vbr..unless i got them from peerweb or something :-D..but i only rip in 320-32 vbr .mp3(lame) using dbpoweramp..i know theirs otherpeeps that use cdex..or the all mighty EAC lmao...i never had a bad rip with dbpoweramp..dont think eac is any more superior then cdex or dbpoweramp...but those are the best 3 rippers imho...also monkey audio rules!!!!

[neoufo51]

Hydrogenaudio is the place to be.

Agreed. :bling

[shawners]

If you dont have music that you want to encode from your cd =)
have some other source do it and download it after its finished.

[progrockusa]

i like mine done in mp3 192, oh by the way did you guys here that itunes closed format has now been hacked lmao. gee that didn't take long. http://www.lockergnome.com/update/archives/week_2003_11_23.html#008015 take a look there

[LordNIkon]

most the files i dl are at 192 vbr..unless i got them from peerweb or something :-D..but i only rip in 320-32 vbr .mp3(lame) using dbpoweramp..i know theirs otherpeeps that use cdex..or the all mighty EAC lmao...i never had a bad rip with dbpoweramp..dont think eac is any more superior then cdex or dbpoweramp...but those are the best 3 rippers imho...also monkey audio rules!!!!

I perfer CDEX for Ripping/Converting and MPC Batch Encoder for just converting to MPC's. Monkey audio is cool too.

[Rahwgwar]

EAC 0.9 Beta 4 in secure mode + LAME 3.90.3 encoded in the --alt-preset standard switch = approx. 200 kbps

Much better than normal VBR modes.....

Yeah I know that kind of rhetoric sounds preachy......blah....but I have been to hydrogenaudio a lot and have come to this conclusion (as have many others).

I like knowing that the CDs I rip/download (lil' plug here lol....see sig for details ;)) will sound extrordinary in even the greatest sound system. A great way to stay organized and have quality at the same time.......something I can really archive.

[notbob]

EAC 0.9 Beta 4 in secure mode + LAME 3.90.3 encoded in the --alt-preset standard switch = approx. 200 kbps

Much better than normal VBR modes.....

Yeah I know that kind of rhetoric sounds preachy......blah....but I have been to hydrogenaudio a lot and have come to this conclusion (as have many others).

I like knowing that the CDs I rip/download (lil' plug here lol....see sig for details ;)) will sound extrordinary in even the greatest sound system. A great way to stay organized and have quality at the same time.......something I can really archive.

how do you know? because some arrogant SOB at hydrogenaudio told you so?

that's not enough

it should sound good to you, and to hell with the "experts"

where is the proof that EAC is better (other than EAC says it is)? you can blindly follow orders, or you can experiment and trust your ears, and use a program like analfreq and see the difference yourself--what's the difference between high vbr and shn? you lose a tiny bit in the frequencies between 17 and 22khz

does that matter? not to the 90% of people who can't hear above 18khz, and to the 99% that can't hear above 19khz (well maybe your dog will miss hearing the frequencies over 20khz)

"audiophile" is just another term for snob, so don't pander to them--rip whatwever sounds good to you--they are your files after all

[wapazoid]

Lossless archiving:
EAC v0.95 pb3 & FLAC Frontend 1.7.1
*EAC for it's secure ripping...if you enjoy pops and clicks in your audio files, go ahead and use one of the many commercial encoders such as Musicmatch that hype "ultra-fast ripping speeds" due to burst read methods and inconsistant error correction. Hydrogren Audio isn't a "snobs" corner...it consists of many enthusiasts (not to mention developers) that provide information and excellent programs for users to get the most out of their digital audio.
Anyways..
Lossy encoding (using dMC for lossless>lossy conversion w/tag info preservation)
mp3 (LAME 3.90.3 -alt-preset standard & -alt-preset insane)
mpc (Braindead profile)

...yes, after all it's your music that you take your precious time to encode, so why not do it right the first time?

[cjules13]

I've never ripped a mp3 in my life... Everything I've got is thanks to guys like you.

Keep up the good work!

[notbob]

Lossless archiving:
EAC v0.95 pb3 & FLAC Frontend 1.7.1
*EAC for it's secure ripping...if you enjoy pops and clicks in your audio files, go ahead and use one of the many commercial encoders such as Musicmatch that hype "ultra-fast ripping speeds" due to burst read methods and inconsistant error correction. Hydrogren Audio isn't a "snobs" corner...it consists of many enthusiasts (not to mention developers) that provide information and excellent programs for users to get the most out of their digital audio.
Anyways..
Lossy encoding (using dMC for lossless>lossy conversion w/tag info preservation)
mp3 (LAME 3.90.3 -alt-preset standard & -alt-preset insane)
mpc (Braindead profile)

...yes, after all it's your music that you take your precious time to encode, so why not do it right the first time?

you are too reliant on "brand names"--what's the difference between lame 3.89 and 3.90? or 3.90 v3 or beta 4?

these are things people spout off about when they want acceptance from the snob herd over at hydrogen audio

use your ears when listening to music, rather than obsessing about numbers

if anything, the people at at hydrogenaudio are file lovers, not music lovers--they are completely too willing to write off a file because it wasn't made "their" way (never mind that almost all music comes from analog sources, and issn't much better to start with than a 192bitrate file, especially old blues)

fsck 'em

[MonkeyMEN RULE]

Notbob: I see your point and you make a good case for it. Some people at hydrogen audio are a bit anal retentive and the alarmist type. I'll be the first to admit that. But at the same time, they test all software they work with. The method in which I rip is convenient and sets a quality and naming standard that I find to be easily acceptable. If it ain't broke don't fix it....to each his own. Don't get me wrong either....I don't believe there is a wrong or right way to rip.

[wapazoid]

you are too reliant on "brand names"--what's the difference between lame 3.89 and 3.90? or 3.90 v3 or beta 4?

these are things people spout off about when they want acceptance from the snob herd over at hydrogen audio

use your ears when listening to music, rather than obsessing about numbers

if anything, the people at at hydrogenaudio are file lovers, not music lovers--they are completely too willing to write off a file because it wasn't made "their" way

fuck 'em

LAME version history http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?rev=1.70
Brandnames? Codecs and all-in-one rippers/encoders you have to actually purchase usually warrant the term "brand name".

posted by notbob:
I like vbr really, but i get shn because those freaks have good shit, even if i don't agree with their formattical fanatacism
Maybe is sounds good because shn is a lossless format? Formattical fanatacism...LOL, sober up.

Right on man...free the world of audio fascist pigs. :shoot

[notbob]

posted by notbob:

Maybe is sounds good because shn is a lossless format? Formattical fanatacism...LOL, sober up.

Right on man...free the world of audio fascist pigs. :shoot

i like the albums and shows they have, i couldn't give a flying shit about their stupid format (which i download and convert to vbr mp3)

oh yeah!

[Kevin06906]

192 is the best for me.

[wapazoid]

i like the albums and shows they have, i couldn't give a flying shit about their stupid format (which i download and convert to vbr mp3)

oh yeah!

Ah, so you actually do have your own preference.

[notbob]

not really a preference--if the only way i can get something is xing 128, i'll take xing 128

you see i care about albums and songs--i'd rather have something than nothing at all (as opposed to the hydrogen freaks, who want to force the world to do it their way, or not have it at all)

[stealthspy]

EAC and LAME 3.90.3 (Dibrom). Those are for the uberstandards. (-alt preset extreme)

CDex and LAME 3.90.3 for everything else (-alt preset extreme)

[moneoa]

Be a man, why do it half assed. Go for the 192+ Bitrates
Be a woman, why do it half assed. Go for 192+ bitrates
The cake tastes better with icing...music doesnt sound good
if it sounds like it was recorded in a tin can (128)

[d3ft0n3s]

is used to use media player wma 192 cbr

now i use dMC CD input

i got the

gold ultradisc2,

Orginal Master Recording,

pink floyd - dark side of the moon,

NOT remastered.

only way to rip that album..

lame mp3 vbr 32-320kbps 48000hz

[MusikBeatz23]

not really a preference--if the only way i can get something is xing 128, i'll take xing 128

you see i care about albums and songs--i'd rather have something than nothing at allI seriously agree with you there...

[DainBramaged]

I agree. Something is better than nothing at all.

But we're talking about what we personally encode in, which implies that we legally own an original copy.

There are good points on both sides of the "argument" of sorts we have going here about Hydrogenaudio. I spend quite a bit of time there, and have found their advice to be quite reliable. That's right: advice. In no way do the majority of people there force their opinions as the one and only. Sure, some people will, but there are always a few. It's clear that there is a central tendancy/preference of the peopel at Hydrogenaudio to more or less uphold one standard, but you'll see that it is, to a large degree, "to each his own."

Lastly, I also agree that you should use what sounds best to YOU. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take a recommendation and try it out for yourself.

[wapazoid]

you see i care about albums and songs--i'd rather have something than nothing at all (as opposed to the hydrogen freaks, who want to force the world to do it their way, or not have it at all)

Not me, man. Quality over quantity for anything. I always encode my own CDs, or find reliable sources I can trust. Even with encspot, there's really no way to tell if someone has transcoded an an audio file from a lower bitrate (which sadly, some people still are under the impression that they can blow a file up from 128kbps - 192kbps and actually get 192kbps sound quality).

[CTC Command]

It depends on what it is--I usually rip at 192, but sometimes if it's something really deep or nuanced I'll push the bit-rate up. When I'm downloading, I will stoop as low as 128 (unless it's something really rare); if there's anything with a higher bitrate available I'll go for it, even if it means an extra hour to download it--the tribulations of an audio snob with a dial-up connection.

[moneoa]

It depends on what it is--I usually rip at 192, but sometimes if it's something really deep or nuanced I'll push the bit-rate up. When I'm downloading, I will stoop as low as 128 (unless it's something really rare); if there's anything with a higher bitrate available I'll go for it, even if it means an extra hour to download it--the tribulations of an audio snob with a dial-up connection.

Weird I usally dont stoop to 128 unless it IS rare
Most computer monkeys can encode at 192 but I have seen
rare stuff come in only at 128

.......then again I guess it depends on where you are looking

[shawners]

its harder to find rare 192 quality files. Seem like when people download rare files, they keep them or catalog them on a drive thats not their shared directory. I loved audiogalaxy. I have found alot of high quality rare files. Got tons of B-sides from 80's bands.

[muffenme]

:fire

I still use Real Audio v3.0 to incode my stuff at 40 Kbps and very happy with that format. I also don't mind any mp3 at 40 Kbps.

:hole

[Apex8199]

I use RealONE to rip and encode at 320 cbr. I compared ripping vbr/cbr and noticed that vbr wasn't playing low freqs that cbr would. Also, the same song will sound different depending on what kind of sound card and speaker setup the user has. So someone using a low-end system won't notice much difference in bit-rate.

[Krypt0]

Easy CD-DA Extractor 5.0 - 192k

[tMoD]

I encode at 320kbps.

[bda]

I try to download files above 128k (usually 192k). I rip my own CDs with iTunes for Windows - AAC format @256k.

[Lehk]

192 using Lame v1.27 engine 3.92 Alpha 1 MMX with q=0 (best quality encoding) joint sterio, I can rarely tell the diff between my ripped MP3's and my CD's

[Vlet]

I'm with the OGG fella's - Anything but high bitrate OGG should be illegal!

[RJ5500]

I'm with the OGG fella's - Anything but high bitrate OGG should be illegal!

Yeah, now that's what the RIAA should be suing people about. Not sharing files but sharing low quality files.

lol :cross

[«Ð/¥\» «¤Sþh!ńX¤»]

192k VBR mp3. Best quality for size as it is said. Although i do like the 320k VBR, its pointless to have songs take up more than 20mb. O.o unless you have a few tetrabytes of storage, then it is no issue. My only issue is the lack of complete and quality songs online.

:shy Have a Nice Day!!!!

[muffenme]

:fire

No they shouldn't put us in jail or sue us for liking music at low quality. They should just give us a nice white coat and let us stay in this lovely padded white room until we learn otherwise because we are nuts, I refering to people like me that like bit rates less then 96 Kbps.

:hole

[Rickio]

I've been playing around with mp4/aac lately and I like either 160 or 192 vbr.

with mp3's 192 vbr is ok. I think mp4's are the future though.

for the curious, you can make mp4's with freeware apps. foobar2000 or dbpoweramp, though foobar is faster and sounds a little better.

[ditto_n]

MPC's Q6 or 7, usually thru foobar but on scratched disks i use EAC.

[Arch Stanton]

I like 224 cause it's the half way point between 128 (moderation) and 320 (excess).

[waqasr]

i just have one question how do u rip
in exect 192 in Cdex! coz there r two settings min and max!
plz some one help me!
God bless u!
thanx

[waqasr]

Yeah, now that's what the RIAA should be suing people about. Not sharing files but sharing low quality files.

lol :cross


i just have one question how do u rip
in exect 192 in Cdex! coz there r two settings min and max!
plz some one help me!
God bless u!
thanx

Last edited

[shawners]

i dont use cdex.. i rip them with dmcaudio imput, and i choose what byte rate. I usally rip them to wav file and have a uploader to turn them to 384 lame.. and after they are uploaded, i delete them off my hard drive.

[blackOcean]

Doh! I saw the poll results and read a few answers from the first page and I'm really, really very surprised by the lack of knowledge or plain logic that a few people express...

1. Why do some use freeformat mp3 or even >400Kbps Ogg when they can go lossless at that high bitrates? Paranoia?

2. Why people, after more than 2 years in existence, refuse to use Lame presets which have been proven (through blind listening tests) to offer better quality compared to typical CBR (or even VBR) files at around 170-220Kbps?

Visit this link in order to learn much about qualitative mp3 encoding (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516)

[kiwibank]

192kbps....audiograbber 1.82 final....lame-3.95.1..


http://mitiok.cjb.net/




___________________________________________

on zeropaid, it pays to be "flame resistant". it`s a matter of survival.

[«°¤§téålth§t®îk餰»]

Doh! I saw the poll results and read a few answers from the first page and I'm really, really very surprised by the lack of knowledge or plain logic that a few people express...

1. Why do some use freeformat mp3 or even >400Kbps Ogg when they can go lossless at that high bitrates? Paranoia?

2. Why people, after more than 2 years in existence, refuse to use Lame presets which have been proven (through blind listening tests) to offer better quality compared to typical CBR (or even VBR) files at around 170-220Kbps?

Visit this link in order to learn much about qualitative mp3 encoding (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7516)


I used to use the VBR Lame encode, but now it's just too much hassle. What's the point of such "high quality" stuff. Normal 192/mp3 encode serves my needs of sharing over WinMX. Most ppl don't even know what Lame is...how will they ever appreciate the effort of what I've done. hehe :;) So I just stick to the good old 192/mp3 and not worry about anything else, but that's just me.

[wapazoid]

I used to use the VBR Lame encode, but now it's just too much hassle. What's the point of such "high quality" stuff. Normal 192/mp3 encode serves my needs of sharing over WinMX. Most ppl don't even know what Lame is...how will they ever appreciate the effort of what I've done. hehe :;) So I just stick to the good old 192/mp3 and not worry about anything else, but that's just me.

Curious, what's the hassle?

[Rickio]

I used to feel 192kbps was ok and 192vbr even better. But recently got a few albums in encoded in mpc and damn if it just didn't sound way better at same bitrate of 192kbps. I alway felt it was better but after hearing 2 albums with both formats I was impressed and gotta encourage anyone interested to check it out.
I could definately hear more nuances and subtlties I was't even aware of before. Tripped me out lol...
mpc is also back in development.


peace

[REDO]

I usually encode anything where:

x=song bitrate
{x|128<=x<=320}

or in interval notation:
[128, 320]

My analysis has found that anything over 320 begins to outwiegh it's sound quality in increased file size, and anything less than 128 has too low of a sound quality; therefore, anything within this range is adequate.

[«°¤§téålth§t®îk餰»]

Curious, what's the hassle?

Getting the program installed, getting the profiles installed, getting the lame encoder in.(refering to chrismyden.com don't know if it's still out there)

After all that effort YOU put into it, ppl don't really know what good sound quality IS. I share on WinMX and most peeps who share full albums like me. Just make it 128 or 192, and not VBR. What's the point? You just wanna listen to it, it's not that big of a difference when you reburn it to a CD anyway.

Most ppl are happy with the normal 128 or 160 or 192/mp3 encodes.

My just my opinion,

[Rickio]

Getting the program installed, getting the profiles installed, getting the lame encoder in.(refering to chrismyden.com don't know if it's still out there)

After all that effort YOU put into it, ppl don't really know what good sound quality IS. I share on WinMX and most peeps who share full albums like me. Just make it 128 or 192, and not VBR. What's the point? You just wanna listen to it, it's not that big of a difference when you reburn it to a CD anyway.

Most ppl are happy with the normal 128 or 160 or 192/mp3 encodes.

My just my opinion,

If you get some good headphone or speakers you will hear the differance. Like the lower bitrates simply cut out so much of the frequencies.

If music is no big deal to you then it's a moot point. But I simply was enjoying 192kbps myself for the longest time, till I heard better and mpc as well as lossless formats like ape and flac just blow away any 192kbps mp3 file. It depends on the music too perhaps.

It's a matter of experience and taste. Just try a few things out there and see what it sounds like.

edonky network has lot's of mpc and ape music files. Or make some tests with foobar which allows you to encode wav files to a number of formats.

I simply encourage people to try out and experience things for themselves.

peace

[wapazoid]

Getting the program installed, getting the profiles installed, getting the lame encoder in.(refering to chrismyden.com don't know if it's still out there)

After all that effort YOU put into it, ppl don't really know what good sound quality IS. I share on WinMX and most peeps who share full albums like me. Just make it 128 or 192, and not VBR. What's the point? You just wanna listen to it, it's not that big of a difference when you reburn it to a CD anyway.

Most ppl are happy with the normal 128 or 160 or 192/mp3 encodes.

My just my opinion,

If you're referring to ÜberStandard 3.0 specifications, I agree that the requirements for sharing via Uber hubs is a bit ridiculous. It's just a group standard and chrismyden's EAC profile/third party ASPI layer method is by no means the "only" way to generate high quality mp3 files. As far as setting up EAC and configuring it just to rip and encode using LAME, it's quite simple (unless your one of the few unfortunate enough to run into complications with DAE and significantly outdated hardware). Your comment about people ignorant enough to not recognize nor care about sound quality would probably be half-true if this were 1999 and sharing via Napster. Lossy audio formats have been in circulation long enough for users to make distinctions.

[«°¤§téålth§t®îk餰»]

If you're referring to ÜberStandard 3.0 specifications, I agree that the requirements for sharing via Uber hubs is a bit ridiculous. It's just a group standard and chrismyden's EAC profile/third party ASPI layer method is by no means the "only" way to generate high quality mp3 files. As far as setting up EAC and configuring it just to rip and encode using LAME, it's quite simple (unless your one of the few unfortunate enough to run into complications with DAE and significantly outdated hardware). Your comment about people ignorant enough to not recognize nor care about sound quality would probably be half-true if this were 1999 and sharing via Napster. Lossy audio formats have been in circulation long enough for users to make distinctions.

I can understand ppl on Napster not knowing the difference. Me growing up in the Napster era of MP3 music. I had absolutely no idea what I was getting as long as it sounded right.

Even now ppl are still a bit ignorant is this area in regards to WinMX. I've seen some pretty bad quality stuff, but like I said in the end, most ppl don't care as long as it doesn't jitter, doesn't sound sandy, or doesn't stop half way. Ppl don't really have a choice and I rip CD's a lot and I don't really like to bother with making it really, really high quality. Everything boils down to: everyone is happy just getting the WHOLE CD, without PAYING.

[wapazoid]

I suppose there truly is a catch-22 scenario for anything distributed freely, isn't there?

[nasrules]

Uberstandard does it for me :)

It's so much better than standard 192kbps MP3.

By the way, when did you get back, StealthStrike?! :D

[monkey8]

Anything less than 192kbps just isn't worth it. Hope they learn!

[Peter Stroker]

I do as the Uberfuhrer wants me to. EAC/LAME Uberstandart. Zieg Heil!
Got im Himmel uses VBR!

[Digispeed03]

192 kbps LAME. Doing so provides decent sound quality (to my ears, at least) and a file size that is not so large as to rapidly fill up one's storage capacity.

[«°¤§téålth§t®îk餰»]

Uberstandard does it for me :)

It's so much better than standard 192kbps MP3.

By the way, when did you get back, StealthStrike?! :D

Thnx for noticing! O well, I said that I might be back and so here I am. Doing nothing in the afternoons so I decided to come back and add my 2 cents. lol

[IshareManyFilez]

320 KBS mp3.

[guyofgames]

192 Kbps mp3. I truely can't hear a difference any higher than that.

[fireforce555]

I use 192kbps LAME. Sometimes if I am sending a music or non music audio file to a family member I will go as low as 96 because many have dial up and 192 for even a 3 min song is too much for their line to download in a timely manner.



Now if I am encoding something VERY complicated like an orchestral(sp?) score off a cd I will go to either 192VBR or 224VBR to get the best result. But I generally find 192CBR good quality where I cant here much of a difference from the original.

[Carrie]

I use EAC and rip at 320kb/s

[Krell]

I use EAC and rip at 320kb/s

I almost fell out of my chair ! Hello feenies-wife

[jondrewfoo]

heh i use eac with lame v0 setting. or eac with flac for lossless stuff. it really depends on what you plan to use the files for to what quality you ned. mp3 players really dont matter. however some high end cd systems you can def tell the difference in a 192 mp3 to a flac copy. also. who in their right mind would leave the file in wav format? flac and wav are both lossless, but wav is uncompressed. plus wav files dont have adequate tags like flac does. they are huge compared to flacs. i will download stuff as long as its good, but the better i always download if possible. im on oink and their most stuff is available in v0 lame ripped with EAC.

[Spacefocus]

ALT PRESET STANDARD with LAME is what I use. I find files that use it indistinguishable from the original and that is on $3000 Audio monitors. Pretty much anything after 192 with a good encoder (like LAME) allocating the bits efficiently will do a good job.