Overclock.net banner
Cancel

Help with my music library.

361 Views 7 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  kz26, 
Semper Fidelis
So I am trying to get my music library into shape. I have a bunch of songs that I ripped with WMP so they are in low bitrates. What I want to do is go through my CD's again and re-rip everything into FLAC as well as having 320kbps versions for my iPod.

I do already have some FLAC files but I need to get them to my iPod. Also, should i use 320kb for portable players or is that too much/not enough?

And is it even worth all the extra space on my HD to store thousands of FLAC files or should I just stick to 320kb?
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
meticadpa
As far as I kow, the iPod doesn't support FLAC, so you may as well stick to MP3 for that.

And if you're not an audiophile, with good equipment, then there should be little or no audible difference between MP3 and FLAC. Not everyone can actually tell the difference. When I ripped some songs in FLAC, I got some friends over, and I was curious so I did a test: Could they tell the difference between FLAC and MP3? Most couldn't.

So, what I think you should do is compare FLAC and MP3, and ask if yourself if it's worth it taking up all the extra space on your hard drive.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Semper Fidelis
2
Quote:

Originally Posted by meticadpa View Post
As far as I kow, the iPod doesn't support FLAC, so you may as well stick to MP3 for that.

And if you're not an audiophile, with good equipment, then there should be little or no audible difference between MP3 and FLAC. Not everyone can actually tell the difference. When I ripped some songs in FLAC, I got some friends over, and I was curious so I did a test: Could they tell the difference between FLAC and MP3? Most couldn't.

So, what I think you should do is compare FLAC and MP3, and ask if yourself if it's worth it taking up all the extra space on your hard drive.

Yeah I don't have amazing audio equipment so I guess there is really no point.

So as far as bitrates go, is 320 really needed or would I notice any difference over 256 or say 128?
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
meticadpa
2
Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis View Post
Yeah I don't have amazing audio equipment so I guess there is really no point.

So as far as bitrates go, is 320 really needed or would I notice any difference over 256 or say 128?
It depends on the individual. Some peoples' ears are more sensitive to some things like that. Personally, 320 KBPS MP3 sounds quite considerably better than 128 KBPS MP3, and slightly better than 256 KBPS MP3, but that's not the same for everyone.

The only way to be sure is to judge for yourself... everyone's ears are different.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
E
128 quality will be very very good
192 quality will be a bit greater
If you get 320, quality will be ****in awesome.

There are some subtilities that you will have at 320 that you won't find in 128 encoding. Those are hearable, but 128 would still do the job pretty well.

It's like comparing tvs 480 vs 1080p (128 x 320kbps)
Or Blu-Rays with DVDs.


If you want to listen to music with your iPod, 320kbps mp3s are going to be insanely deliscious.

Don't even bother with FLACs, really.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
-iceblade^
it's as Meti said. you need to decide for yourself. if you have a good soundcard, and space, then FLAC is the way to go. otherwise, MP3 will be OK.

personally i'm fine with 128-192 MP3 - if you like the sound of the lower bitrates, then save space that way. if not, then go higher. though, unless you flash your iPod with Rockbox firmware, you won't be able to play FLAC files on it.

only you can decide though

-e- with 640 gigs of space, i'd stick away from FLAC tbh considering a 3-disc album can be 3, 3.5 gigs, you'll be running out of space really soon
Reply
Save
Like
A
For portable, FLAC will not be worth it since they're large files. 320kbps is fine for a portable and I wouldn't recommend anything else. I know a guy who got a Cowon just for FLAC and he said his basic MP3 players with non-FLAC (192 MP3s, 320 WMAs, etc.) were more than enough for his needs and the switch was a waste.

However, for PC, it's your call. If you're anal about sound quality and have the equipment for it, go for FLAC.
Reply
Save
Like
kz26
I believe I've read on HydrogenAudio that for most users, LAME-encoded MP3s achieve transparency (i.e. the MP3 sounds identical to the original) around 192kbps. That said, there is no need to go with 320kbps encoding or all-out FLAC, especially on a portable device. If you're going to go all-out with 320s, at least use VBR since that is considerably more efficient.

That said, these days I would actually prefer AAC over MP3 since it offers better fidelity at lower bitrates compared to MP3. I am currently using the Nero AAC encoder (VBR q52 setting) with dBpoweramp.
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Overclock.net
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Hardware News Intel CPUs PC Gaming NVIDIA Water Cooling
Top