mp3, Are less bits really worse?

[Mr Peabody]

Last week while charging my mp3 player, just a 1 gig shuffle style, I downloaded a firmware update. When I turned it on I noticed the playlist started over so I began to arrow backward to find where I left off. The player eventually jammed for some reason and quit. Reset didn't help. I ran the mp3 rescue thing and of course it reformat my player. So I proceeded to download the songs from my library which is less than 200. Although not many songs there were always some that didn't fit because of the settings I had my files set to. I wanted the best sound possible so it was on the largest setting. Well, when my download was complete I noticed I had 266 MB left. What? The only thing I can figure out is maybe either the rescue program or the firmware update some how changed my settings back to whatever factory was. It was late so I figure instead of trying to reset everything and downloading again I'll just listen like it is until I get more time.

I expected to turn on the player and be horrified but instead what I found was a trade off. When the music files were large I got a sense of everything being close together and congested. The smaller files sounded wider and more open. The only thing I can figure is it's an illusion because so much is gone or possibly some EQ done to the small files because they were very balanced in response. Now, the smaller files had much less bass. On songs I'm familiar with there is definitely a noticeable lack of detail. Like on a certain Smashing Pumpkins song the distorted guitar almost sounds like a wall of distortion, this is scaled down quite a bit on the smaller file. On Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Aeroplane toward the end when the children come in it's a pretty big part of the song but on the smaller file the kids were in the background more and it sounded like there were less participants. Also, on the smaller files everything has what I can only describe as a fragile or hollow feel to it. It's really wild, it's like you hear an instrument but you only get part of the picture.

So the trade off: smaller file more songs, sense of a more open sound stage but songs can sound different from the original and not have the wide range of frequency response and impact vs. larger files less songs, more info and wider fuller frequency response but everything sounds squeezed into a small space.

I think I tend to like the larger files better but being this is just for commuting being able to fit more songs tipped the scales to leaving things the way they are. I could live with the lesser frequency response because it does relieve that sense of everything being squeezed but it is going to be hard getting used to songs sounding different from the original. Hearing this I am certain at least one radio station uses mp3. When the format changed from Jazz to whatever they are now the sound quality changed and I could never figure out why but the characteristics is just the same as I experienced on my mp3 player.

Could it be the smaller files need less compression, so maybe that's why they don't sound as squeezed into a small space? Anyway if anyone has heard different size files I'd be interested in getting your thoughts.

[E-Stat]

Are fewer bits really worse?
To these ears, yes. The top end of low rate MP3s always sound "swishy" to me. Although I am now in the process of re-ripping my digital collection to full sized WAV, I previously captured it to 320 kb MP3. Anything less was audible.


The only thing I can figure out is maybe either the rescue program or the firmware update some how changed my settings back to whatever factory was.
That is very likely the case and might have reverted the sampling back to some low rate like 128 kb. On the other hand, there may be other settings changed where your original was less than optimal.


When the music files were large I got a sense of everything being close together and congested. The smaller files sounded wider and more open. The only thing I can figure is it's an illusion because so much is gone or possibly some EQ done to the small files because they were very balanced in response. .
That's where you lost me. File size is determined by sample rate and song duration. For a given song, a smaller file will necessarily have a lesser sample rate. Along with compromised high frequency performance and dynamics.

rw

[oaqm]

Sherman here, Mister Peabody. By any chance do you know if the firmware update changed the mp3 encoder used by your hardware? Different encoders have different "signatures" if you will. Once upon a time, the Fraunhofer engine was THE way to go, but they actually wanted to collect licensing fees on their product, so open source encoders such as LAME came into being. LAME has steadily gotten better with each release, and I wonder if your gizmo now has better software.

Some info concerning encoders:
http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-1.html

[Mr Peabody]

Hey Sherman, the roles are being reversed here, aren't they :) Interesting article though and a viable explanation. I used Windows Media Player and my mp3 player is from Creative Labs. I'll have to do some more digging.

[Feanor]

...
The only thing I can figure out is maybe either the rescue program or the firmware update some how changed my settings back to whatever factory was. It was late so I figure instead of trying to reset everything and downloading again I'll just listen like it is until I get more time.

I expected to turn on the player and be horrified but instead what I found was a trade off. When the music files were large I got a sense of everything being close together and congested. The smaller files sounded wider and more open. ...


Certainly for me high compression results in the opposite if I understand what you're saying. All sense of air and depth are lost as the compression ratio goes up. Like you said in another thread, there is a huge difference anyone can hear, certainly for 128kbps.

One question: did the reset change the EQ setting on your player. On my iPod Mini I noticed a huge improvement when I selected the "Classical" EQ setting. Regardless of compression, music sounded fatiguing on whatever the earlier setting had been.

All my ripped music is Apple Lossess (ALAC). On my equipment and with my ears, I can't hear a difference from WAV. I copy ALAC to my iPod though of course I can't got very many piece onto my 4GB player. This is fine with me for commuting purposes, since I get several days-worth for my 1 hour total daily commute time.

[kexodusc]

My sentiments are pretty much a carbon copy of Feanor's. I can't tolerate mp3's below a variable bit-rate of approx 160 kbps. I like it higher if at all possible. I lose soundstage, it's like listening to radio. Yuck. Acceptable for headphone listening if you're going to the gym, maybe but that's it. 128 kpbs at constant bit rate sounds "swishy"...

On the flipside, I don't notice much improvement going from approx 192 kbps vbr to anything higher. So improvements seem to be marginalized. I think that's close to the sweet spot for sound quality/size.

I rip all my CD's to FLAC (same idea as ALAC, just not proprietary). I can hear no difference between this and WAV at all on my system. Just wish more devices supported FLAC, maybe we'll see that as storage capacities grow.

[Mr Peabody]

I checked the settings on WMP and my settings went down, it looks like my version only goes to 192 kbs.

My mp3 player does not have an EQ. I don't know if it can be tweaked by anything on the computer. My player is only a shuffle. A possible new encoding seems plausible but I'm not sure how to find out. I'll have to poke around on Creative's website.

The sound quality of the smaller file is definitely degraded, to the point that a familiar song can sometimes sound strange, different, like it is a different version or something. I'm not sure why the smaller file sounds like more space between instruments unless it's just my perception because so much information is lost. Especially in the lower frequencies.

[kexodusc]

I checked the settings on WMP and my settings went down, it looks like my version only goes to 192 kbs.

My mp3 player does not have an EQ. I don't know if it can be tweaked by anything on the computer. My player is only a shuffle. A possible new encoding seems plausible but I'm not sure how to find out. I'll have to poke around on Creative's website.

The sound quality of the smaller file is definitely degraded, to the point that a familiar song can sometimes sound strange, different, like it is a different version or something. I'm not sure why the smaller file sounds like more space between instruments unless it's just my perception because so much information is lost. Especially in the lower frequencies.
Another consideration...I do believe WMP defaults to WMA files, not mp3's, and WMA's are limited to 192 kbps at constant bitrate (why does anyone still use cbr?).

Also, in my experience, different encoders will yield different quality levels. WMP's probably isn't the best for encoding to the mp3 format, unless it's the latest LAME encoder or whatever.

[Mr Peabody]

I saw a setting for "variable bit rate" should I be using that?

There is also a "mp3" option I could select instead of "wma". When I first got my mp3 I got the impression that WMA was a better format than typical mp3.

[kexodusc]

I saw a setting for "variable bit rate" should I be using that?

There is also a "mp3" option I could select instead of "wma". When I first got my mp3 I got the impression that WMA was a better format than typical mp3.

If you are using your music files on a portable device, or in a car or something, you might want to check to see if variable bit rate (vbr) is supported. If it is (probably if made in the last 2 years) I would highly recommend ripping your music in that form...better sound per unit of file size, IMO.

Variable bit rate takes the busiest, most information packed portions of the waveform and allocates more bits to it, while allocating fewer bits to less busy portions of a song (ie, dead air, not much musical information). Ie, at one setting, it could swing from a low of 135 kb to high of 215 kb accordingly. It's just a much more efficient way of achieving the balance between quality and file size. I use it whenever I can.
Constant bit rate always keeps the bitrate at the size you choose, say 128 kbps whether the whole symphony is playing, or there's dead air, it allocates 128 kbps to reproduce that. File size is more predictable and older devices work, but quality is sacrificed.

WMA's around 128-192 kbps are not really better anymore, at lower bit rates though WMA's are considerably better. Depends on the encoder of course, around 192 kbps, I can't hear a difference anymore between wma's and mp3's. If you're really anal about quality, mp3's can achieve bitrates up to 320 (wma's only 192)...it's a tiny bit better, but you're sacrificing file size.

I tend to support non Microsoft proprietary formats out of principle, but I would preach to you which one you should use, go with whatever's easiest for ya. Mp3 is still usuable in more devices, but you're only worried about the ones you actually own so that's moot.

[audio amateur]

I thought mp3 was universally recognised as a non-audiophile format that SUCKS. Why is there discussion about it?

[Mr Peabody]

Thanks for the info. I didn't think WMA was proprietary, I was under the impression that it was almost as versatile as typical mp3. I just used WMP because it was easier than the other programs I already have on my computer and I didn't want to download anything else just for mp3.

[kexodusc]

Thanks for the info. I didn't think WMA was proprietary, I was under the impression that it was almost as versatile as typical mp3. I just used WMP because it was easier than the other programs I already have on my computer and I didn't want to download anything else just for mp3.
Yeah...anytime a product, software or otherwise has the word "Windows" incorporated in its name (even the "W" should raise a flag), chances are it's proprietary. Same goes for Apple. Good rule of thumb anyway.

It's almost as versatile I guess - pretty much any computer can play it, and maybe 1/2 of all devices out there can, with more and more each year. I think most people use it again because of Microsoft's ability to embed WMP into the operating system and do everything but force it on us. Most people just start using it, then never bother to learn another program and go through the growing pains again. I used it for a few years on my old PC for the same reason - didn't want the bother of using another program.

I've run into problems though - my cell phone won't play wma's and the 1 year old panasonic cd player in my car struggles with vbr WMA's for some reason.

[oaqm]

I thought mp3 was universally recognised as a non-audiophile format that SUCKS. Why is there discussion about it?

I think it has something to do with mp3s being universally recognized. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are everywhere, and show little sign of going away as of this writing.

[audio amateur]

I think it has something to do with mp3s being universally recognized. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are everywhere, and show little sign of going away as of this writing.
Just messing about:) i've got mp3's in my library.

[Woochifer]

As kex pointed out, not all MP3s are created equal. Even using an identical bitrate and file format, the quality of the audio file can vary considerably depending on the encoder that you use. At low bitrates (closer to 128k), I've actually had the best luck using the Real Player. At higher bitrates around 192k, I've not noticed quite as big a difference between different encoders, although I still like the files encoded thru Real Player a little better than the MP3s encoded using iTunes (which seems to work best encoding AAC files). I've also noticed that as others have pointed out, using a variable bit rate does make a difference in making the sound more coherent.


I thought mp3 was universally recognised as a non-audiophile format that SUCKS. Why is there discussion about it?

NEVER MIND! :p

[Mr Peabody]

What brought about my submission to mp3 was I got tired of listening to FM while riding the bus. I tried portable satelite radio but it failed miserably. The thought of carrying a CD player and discs really didn't appeal to me. Hence, let's take a stab at mp3 and see how bad it really is. In portable use it's tolerable. It would be better if I had a megabit storage and larger files. I'd love to do that but I can't see well enough to navigate the menus. A friend of mine told me about a program called Rockbox that gives speech to the menus but it only works with certain players. I'm not all that great with computers I'm afraid of laying out the money for the specific player and not being able to get the program to work. So for now it's the simple shuffle with no menus and small storage. We all have our crosses to bare :)

[E-Stat]

What brought about my submission to mp3 was I got tired of listening to FM while riding the bus.
My job involves a good bit of air travel so I wanted a way to listen to tunes and block the noise. I just added a player app to my Palm phone along with a 4 GB SD card and Shure E3c earbuds. Works great for that without having to buy another box. I can always increase the storage if I want.

My surprise is how many folks buy the music in this format rather than ripping from a higher quality source.

rw

[flippo]

From what I have read in the different formats, a 64 bit wma is the equal to 128 bit mp3 and so on. Now I haven't really tested this out at all so don't know if this is true or not. I ripped all my CDs to 192 bit WMA and are very good. I also am a member of yahoo music so I can download all I want. I know, the dreaded DRM but for the price of 1 cd a month I can download as many as I want so it is worth it to me. Most of the music I could not afford to buy all the CDs in the first place.

[hermanv]

IMHO any purchased music should be stored (on your home computer?) in a format as least as good as CD Redbook. Imagine 25 years from now if you win the lottery and buy a no holds bared system and all your music, (which is no longer available,) is in 132Kbits.

You can always compress for your portable player, not to mention that compression algorithms are still improving, so having a first class music file source makes the most sense to me.

I remember thinking how great VHS was when it first became available, now if I watch a VHS movie I keep wondering whats wrong with my player or TV set.

[kexodusc]

From what I have read in the different formats, a 64 bit wma is the equal to 128 bit mp3 and so on. Now I haven't really tested this out at all so don't know if this is true or not.
Yeah, Microsoft published those findings based on test they did - think there was a bit of bias in that exercise? We tested our own codec and found it to be way better than the other one.

Truth is, 64 kbps wma isn't as good as 128 kbps mp3, but it's pretty close - I'd say 92 kpbs is definitely as good as 128 kbps for all music but classical.

Where wma really kills mp3 is in voice recordings at lower bitrates, ie 32 kbps or even 62 kbps. I record meetings all the time and I've found wma to be far superior at the lower bitrates than mp3. Voice alone isn't very demanding so you wouldn't think the difference would be that much, but it is.

What Microsoft doesn't tell you is that mp3 becomes relatively more effective at higher bit rates, and wma becomes relatively less effective at higher bitrates. Around 192 kbps, the two are said to be indistinguishable. In my unprofessional testing, I still found WMA's to have the edge on mp3's at 160 kbps, and can only hear a difference on the way cymbals ring. By 192, that's gone and they're both about equal. Mp3's can go higher which might yield some audible improvement, but IMO it's not worth it for the file size/time.
Mp3 can be customized a bit more for advanced users when using vbr, which can yield some improvements.



I ripped all my CDs to 192 bit WMA and are very good. I also am a member of yahoo music so I can download all I want. I know, the dreaded DRM but for the price of 1 cd a month I can download as many as I want so it is worth it to me. Most of the music I could not afford to buy all the CDs in the first place.

192 bit WMA's are pretty good. A lot of times the audiphile types are quick to dismiss how good compressed digital music can sound. They might be basing their opinions on experience with older versions of the codec which were less effective, but regardless. At least you're buying music. Good on ya.

[Feanor]

...
192 bit WMA's are pretty good. A lot of times the audiphile types are quick to dismiss how good compressed digital music can sound. They might be basing their opinions on experience with older versions of the codec which were less effective, but regardless. At least you're buying music. Good on ya.

Why lossy compressed? To save storage space, ya dummy. OK fine, but where's the problem with space? It's only a problem is you want to store your entire "song" collection on a 2GB Nano. For that matter I'm content storing a mere week's worth of lossless on my 4GB mini.

Apart from cramming your wimpy portable player, it is a waste of time to rip CD to anything but a lossless format. In the first place, rips are faster to lossless than to a more compressed format. Secondly, storage space is cheap today. My daughter just bought a 320GB external drive for C$80 plus tax. I have my entire classical collection, 600 CDs, stored on a 250GB external that cost me $100 a couple of months ago, and backed up on a second, 320GB external that I paid $150 a year ago. This is dirt cheap in audiophile terms of reference.

BTW, I don't see a need to store in WAV format. First, I personally can't hear the difference from lossless (ALAC) in critical listening -- in fact there is no difference: my DAC recognizes and decodes HDCD as usual. If I need WAV, e.g. to burn a CD for someone, bit-perfect WAV files can be created from the stored lossless.

[kexodusc]

Why lossy compressed? To save storage space, ya dummy. OK fine, but where's the problem with space? It's only a problem is you want to store your entire "song" collection on a 2GB Nano. For that matter I'm content storing a mere week's worth of lossless on my 4GB mini.


Hey, you won't get an argument from me on the merits of lossless, but I have plenty o' storage space. You still can't buy FLAC/ALAC/WMA-Lossless from most services though, so lossy is necesary sometimes.

For the non-audiophile type, can see the problem though. My sister has a ton of videos on her hard drive, and saving storage space is a more attractive option than forking out $100 or whatever for another hard drive. Don't necessarily agree with her priorities, but what can I do?

[Feanor]

Hey, you won't get an argument from me on the merits of lossless, but I have plenty o' storage space. You still can't buy FLAC/ALAC/WMA-Lossless from most services though, so lossy is necesary sometimes.
...

Yeah, it's a pity that we can't download lossless. As a mainly classical listener, I'm usually interested in downloading an entire CD. I absolutely refuse to pay as much for 192kbps downloads as I would for the physical CD.

$1.30 per "song" for higher-rez (but still very lossy) format is a scam perpetrated by the music distributors given the relative cost of distributing a physical CD. Consumers need to stop being such suckers. A valid cost per song is probably about 15 or 20 cents. To boot, at that rate piracy would be neglible or relatively so.

[audio amateur]

Yeah, it's a pity that we can't download lossless. As a mainly classical listener, I'm usually interested in downloading an entire CD. I absolutely refuse to pay as much for 192kbps downloads as I would for the physical CD.

$1.30 per "song" for higher-rez (but still very lossy) format is a scam perpetrated by the music distributors given the relative cost of distributing a physical CD. Consumers need to stop being such suckers. A valid cost per song is probably about 15 or 20 cents. To boot, at that rate piracy would be neglible or relatively so.

Totally agreed

[kexodusc]

Yeah, it's a pity that we can't download lossless. As a mainly classical listener, I'm usually interested in downloading an entire CD. I absolutely refuse to pay as much for 192kbps downloads as I would for the physical CD.

$1.30 per "song" for higher-rez (but still very lossy) format is a scam perpetrated by the music distributors given the relative cost of distributing a physical CD. Consumers need to stop being such suckers. A valid cost per song is probably about 15 or 20 cents. To boot, at that rate piracy would be neglible or relatively so.

It's coming, slowly. I was able to download the Gov't Mule Show I attended on the band's website in FLAC, about 3 days after, for only $15 cdn. A near 3 hr show to boot...the quality was far beyond what I've come to expect from most "live performance" cd's...they feed their shows into their soundboard with the recordings in mind.

FLAC and APE lossless are proliferating in the illegal realm too. I'm not advocating that, but it shows more people are using lossless than ever. Think more people are catching on that 128k sucks and there's better options available. Downloading speed remains the bottleneck.

[Woochifer]

What brought about my submission to mp3 was I got tired of listening to FM while riding the bus. I tried portable satelite radio but it failed miserably. The thought of carrying a CD player and discs really didn't appeal to me. Hence, let's take a stab at mp3 and see how bad it really is. In portable use it's tolerable. It would be better if I had a megabit storage and larger files. I'd love to do that but I can't see well enough to navigate the menus. A friend of mine told me about a program called Rockbox that gives speech to the menus but it only works with certain players. I'm not all that great with computers I'm afraid of laying out the money for the specific player and not being able to get the program to work. So for now it's the simple shuffle with no menus and small storage. We all have our crosses to bare :)

Even the iPod shuffle nowadays comes with up to 2GB of storage and costs only $69. You can cram a lot of music into that space -- well over 200 songs encoded at 192k. Unless you're using isolating over-the-ear headphones, the ambient noise on a bus will render any loss of audio detail negligible. The leap from 128k to 192k (especially using VBR on the latter) is impressive, and the audio quality is very comparable to the source under most listening conditions while on the go.


Why lossy compressed? To save storage space, ya dummy. OK fine, but where's the problem with space? It's only a problem is you want to store your entire "song" collection on a 2GB Nano. For that matter I'm content storing a mere week's worth of lossless on my 4GB mini.

Apart from cramming your wimpy portable player, it is a waste of time to rip CD to anything but a lossless format. In the first place, rips are faster to lossless than to a more compressed format. Secondly, storage space is cheap today. My daughter just bought a 320GB external drive for C$80 plus tax. I have my entire classical collection, 600 CDs, stored on a 250GB external that cost me $100 a couple of months ago, and backed up on a second, 320GB external that I paid $150 a year ago. This is dirt cheap in audiophile terms of reference.

For me, storage space is an issue, both on my computer and on my iPod. Certain albums are what I regard as "permanent" occupants on my iPod playlist -- the SFS Mahler symphonies, the Miles Davis boxed sets for In A Silent Way, B*tches Brew, Jack Johnson, and The Cellar Door Sessions, everything I have from Pat Metheny, and a few others. Those albums alone occupy close to half the available space on my iPod, even encoded at 192k. If I rip everything in a lossless format, then I'd have to downconvert anything I sync to the iPod in order to keep the albums I want and still have space available for new items. It's just more extra steps that I'm too lazy to take.

On my computer, I have a 500 GB hard drive and a 500 GB external drive for Time Machine backups, but the disc space disappears in a hurry because I use the computer for editing digital video. MiniDV video consumes about 250MB for every minute of footage, and with our infant in front of the camera on a very regular basis, that adds up in a hurry! Since my ripped audio files are only used while I'm sitting at the computer or for transfer to my iPod, I figure I'm fine with 192k.

[pixelthis]

Yeah, it's a pity that we can't download lossless. As a mainly classical listener, I'm usually interested in downloading an entire CD. I absolutely refuse to pay as much for 192kbps downloads as I would for the physical CD.

$1.30 per "song" for higher-rez (but still very lossy) format is a scam perpetrated by the music distributors given the relative cost of distributing a physical CD. Consumers need to stop being such suckers. A valid cost per song is probably about 15 or 20 cents. To boot, at that rate piracy would be neglible or relatively so.

ACTUALLY, you can "download" lossless , and its free.
A newsgroup service is about 8 bucks a month for 10 gigs.
There are binary groups for ape and flac files.
I have 25 gigs of mostly jazz and classic rock that I downloaded.
I have downloaded complete albums, complete with cover art in RAR files.
Like most all flac the sound in indistingushiable from WAV.
Being into jazz I mostly go to jazz groups, but in the flac group I saw several classical
collections, as well as in the ape section.
And while newsgroups have the rep of being the "red light" district of the net, truth is I have had problems only a few times (once I downloaded a "mpeg" file, but it popped up as an exe, and I reacted quickly but not quickly enough, things went downhill very fast from there)
But that was years ago and was fixable. HAVEN'T had any trouble in a long time.
A bit of trouble but well worth messing with as most readers will assemble files for you.
And if not winrar is relatively easy to use.
A nice thing about newsgroups is the unique things you can get, like a 300 MB file of a
four minute video, the picture and audio was amazing, really.
But you need broadband , really, I used to DL mp3 on a dialup, but it took forever:1:

[Feanor]

ACTUALLY, you can "download" lossless , and its free.
:1:

Perhaps I'll check it out. Free is not necessary, but I would like to see fairly price rather than gouge.

There are a few source for lossless, and even hi-rez, classical downloads but the selection is so limited as to be irrelevant.

[Mr Peabody]

Kex you are the man. After talking with you I went into WMP and set it to VBR and the bit range 40-320. I charged my mp3 player last night, this morning when I turned it on and thought either I miraculously received a vast improvement in hearing or my mp3 player upgraded these songs on it's own. The sound quality was vastly improved. I didn't realize my player would change without manually resyncing. I haven't plugged it back in to see how much change there was in remaining space. Some aspects of the sound is better than originally but the bass is a little lacking in low end detail. The midbass is detailed probably more so than originally, the low end is just not as controlled sounding. I really do suspect the firmware upgrade was either a change or completely different encoder though. Overall, now is the best sound so far. Thanks to everyone for the help.

[Feanor]

...
For me, storage space is an issue, both on my computer and on my iPod. Certain albums are what I regard as "permanent" occupants on my iPod playlist -- the SFS Mahler symphonies, ... If I rip everything in a lossless format, then I'd have to downconvert anything I sync to the iPod in order to keep the albums I want and still have space available for new items. It's just more extra steps that I'm too lazy to take.

On my computer, I have a 500 GB hard drive and a 500 GB external drive for Time Machine backups, but the disc space disappears in a hurry because I use the computer for editing digital video. MiniDV video consumes about 250MB for every minute of footage, and with our infant in front of the camera on a very regular basis, that adds up in a hurry! Since my ripped audio files are only used while I'm sitting at the computer or for transfer to my iPod, I figure I'm fine with 192k.

I will concede that if you only listen on the portable, there is a reasonable argument for lower bit rates given you won't hear much difference on typical ear buds or 'phones. Dowloading lossless I have to "manage" my content carefully on my 4GB Mini pretty; (I can't self-impose the need to have all of Mahler's symphonies permanently installed). Of course iPod capacities are getting huge.

On the other hand my ripped content is primarily for listening on my main system. So I'll stick with my point that ripping at less than lossless is a waste of time. I got in an argument with a guy on a classical music forum who insisted the "99% of people cannot tell the difference between 320kbps and CD". Well maybe, maybe not, but with lossess, (ALAC), you end up with variable bit rates that are typically 400-500kps: that isn't all that much more than 320kbps.

[kexodusc]

I will concede that if you only listen on the portable, there is a reasonable argument for lower bit rates given you won't hear much difference on typical ear buds or 'phones. Dowloading lossless I have to "manage" my content carefully on my 4GB Mini pretty; (I can't self-impose the need to have all of Mahler's symphonies permanently installed). Of course iPod capacities are getting huge.

On the other hand my ripped content is primarily for listening on my main system. So I'll stick with my point that ripping at less than lossless is a waste of time. I got in an argument with a guy on a classical music forum who insisted the "99% of people cannot tell the difference between 320kbps and CD". Well maybe, maybe not, but with lossess, (ALAC), you end up with variable bit rates that are typically 400-500kps: that isn't all that much more than 320kbps.
400-500? Best I get with ALAC is 500-600 and most of my jazz/rock stuff is in the 750-850 range. Some of my jazz recordings are 900-1100.

Weird, just looking quickly, my classical music seems to turn into lower bitrates while jazz and rock demand higher bitrates, wonder why?

Anyway, even 600 is quite a bit more data than mp3 320 kbps. Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with the guy on the classical music forum that for the most part 320 is pretty hard to distinguish from the original track. But there are still times when I notice soundstage and imaging just seems....off. Could be me, but harmonics can seem "wrong" too. I don't hear the dreaded swishy noise in the high end though. I'm not versed enough in the technicalities of encoding to know what is lost at 320 kbps, but I do know in theory it is supposed to be the redundant and masked information that we don't hear anyway. For the most part it's really good.

For portable music - I can see no benefit to using lossless on the device. Imaging and soundstage are the areas I hear most improved (or preserved?) using lossless - those are rendered irrelevant to a large extend using headphones anyway.

[kexodusc]

Kex you are the man. After talking with you I went into WMP and set it to VBR and the bit range 40-320. I charged my mp3 player last night, this morning when I turned it on and thought either I miraculously received a vast improvement in hearing or my mp3 player upgraded these songs on it's own. The sound quality was vastly improved. I didn't realize my player would change without manually resyncing. I haven't plugged it back in to see how much change there was in remaining space. Some aspects of the sound is better than originally but the bass is a little lacking in low end detail. The midbass is detailed probably more so than originally, the low end is just not as controlled sounding. I really do suspect the firmware upgrade was either a change or completely different encoder though. Overall, now is the best sound so far. Thanks to everyone for the help.
Cool, glad we could help.

For even better results, I would suggest dabbling with other programs. Real Player and dbpoweramp are decent, for the discriminating audiophile using Windows on their PC, I'd recommend EAC - it is very meticulous in ripping the original .wav file - and does a much better job than say iTunes, WMP, and other more common programs. You can then use the latest Lame encoder to make the best possible mp3's.

EAC recovered more than a few totally scratched and useless CD's for me - one took about 11 hrs to read and restore perfectly! It ain't always fast, but well worth it.

I'm not sure if Grip is available on windows, it's probably the best ripping program I've used period! It's the king in the Linux community.

[Feanor]

400-500? Best I get with ALAC is 500-600 and most of my jazz/rock stuff is in the 750-850 range. Some of my jazz recordings are 900-1100.

Weird, just looking quickly, my classical music seems to turn into lower bitrates while jazz and rock demand higher bitrates, wonder why?

...

I shot my mouth before double checking the facts. :o Your range is more accurate.

Bit rates are hugely variable in ALAC. I have an example at 261kbps, (John Cage, Prelude for Meditation, (piano)), and one at 1107kbps, (Freddie Hubbard, Ready for Freddie: Birdlike), which is virtually uncompressed.

Yes, my jazz files tend to have higher bit rates too. Perhaps this is counter intuitive but not doubt there is an explanation. One think I've noticed: all the highest bit jazz files have cymbals and most brass. That cymbals would demand a high bit rate isn't amazing.

[kexodusc]

I shot my mouth before double checking the facts. :o Your range is more accurate.

Bit rates are hugely variable in ALAC. I have an example at 261kbps, (John Cage, Prelude for Meditation, (piano)), and one at 1107kbps, (Freddie Hubbard, Ready for Freddie: Birdlike), which is virtually uncompressed.

Yes, my jazz files tend to have higher bit rates too. Perhaps this is counter intuitive but not doubt there is an explanation. One think I've noticed: all the highest bit jazz files have cymbals and most brass. That cymbals would demand a high bit rate isn't amazing.
Same with FLAC -

You had me excited - I thought maybe I could find a setting to reduce file size (which would correspond with the lower bitrates).

I haven't used ALAC in a while, I know a good FLAC encoder let's you adjust settings for file size, which does further reduce the bitrate a bit, but it takes a lot longer to rip. There's no loss in quality of course, just a bit more space saving, but the I don't find the 10-15% footprint difference worth the the time it takes. Maybe if I had a bleeding edge super computer...

[E-Stat]

...who insisted the "99% of people cannot tell the difference between 320kbps and CD".
99% of all such claims have been proven false. :)

Before I bought a larger drive, I ripped quite a bit of my CD library to 320 k MP3 largely for listening on my computer system. He really cannot detect the missing dynamics, resolution and top end smoothness? Ok!

rw

[E-Stat]

but the I don't find the 10-15% footprint difference worth the the time it takes. Maybe if I had a bleeding edge super computer...
Based on the low cost of storage today, I don't bother either. Terabyte drives go for as little as $220. My time is more valuable. I am in the process of going back and ripping everything to full WAV. That I do for two reasons: facilitates re-burning CDRs I use on the garage and car players and allows me to listen on my computer system as well.

My portable system is a Treo Palm phone with Shure E3c buds and a 4 GB SD card I paid $35 for around Thanksgiving. While that stored only a couple hundred songs, such is sufficient for my purposes. If I wanted to double that capacity, I could buy a new 8 GB card for the same amount today on E-Bay!

rw