Alison Krauss: dts & mp3 320kbps
- Thread starter mito
- Start date
hoom
Veteran
This brings up a query I've had for a while, I have my CD collection ripped to 128/256bit MP3 but there have been a bunch of other formats that came out in the ensuing years.
I've been considering re-ripping everything into a new format for a while.
Assuming that compression tech has advanced somewhat since mp3 (& not particularly wanting to get format/DRM bound), what is the best format these days to encode music to for combo of quality/size?
I've been considering re-ripping everything into a new format for a while.
Assuming that compression tech has advanced somewhat since mp3 (& not particularly wanting to get format/DRM bound), what is the best format these days to encode music to for combo of quality/size?
I believe this answers my question.............
Thanks for bringing this up... had been meaning to do some testing w/ aac.
Before the tests, I had them ranked:
1) .wma
2) .ogg (really a tie w/ .wma though a slightly different sound... but ranked second b/c .wma more commonly supported in my use)
3) .mp3
Now it is:
1) .m4a
2) .wma / .ogg (still prefer .wma very slightly)
3) .mp3
What separates .m4a/aac for me is the depth and warmth present in the music (well the test music anyway)... both ogg and wma seemed cold and detatched in comparison. mp3...not really worth mentioning.
How I tested: ripped all tracks into various formats using the highest quality settings available below lossless w/ VBR. It should be noted the .m4a files were generally slightly larger than the .wma ex: 16.7 vs 14.1, 8.74 vs 7.38, 5.76 vs 5.04 MB.
Conclusion: I'd listen to .wma, .m4a, and .ogg at the approximate settings you want to rip at and see if you can tell a difference... if you can't... go with whichever has the smaller file size... it all adds up.
EDIT: For the entire album I ripped the file size difference was 119 vs 102 MB (.m4a/.wma).
EDIT2: The aac version I used was actually aacPlus v2.
Before the tests, I had them ranked:
1) .wma
2) .ogg (really a tie w/ .wma though a slightly different sound... but ranked second b/c .wma more commonly supported in my use)
3) .mp3
Now it is:
1) .m4a
2) .wma / .ogg (still prefer .wma very slightly)
3) .mp3
What separates .m4a/aac for me is the depth and warmth present in the music (well the test music anyway)... both ogg and wma seemed cold and detatched in comparison. mp3...not really worth mentioning.
How I tested: ripped all tracks into various formats using the highest quality settings available below lossless w/ VBR. It should be noted the .m4a files were generally slightly larger than the .wma ex: 16.7 vs 14.1, 8.74 vs 7.38, 5.76 vs 5.04 MB.
Conclusion: I'd listen to .wma, .m4a, and .ogg at the approximate settings you want to rip at and see if you can tell a difference... if you can't... go with whichever has the smaller file size... it all adds up.
EDIT: For the entire album I ripped the file size difference was 119 vs 102 MB (.m4a/.wma).
EDIT2: The aac version I used was actually aacPlus v2.
Last edited by a moderator:
even an mp3 at 320kbps???
Well, I was comparing back to the original CD... and yeah the differences between .mp3 and CD as well as any of the other formats was pretty apparent. Of course, knowing what to listen for and actively listening for flaws is alot different than casual listening. In most cases, I doubt I'd notice if a 320kbps .mp3 was being played instead of a CD. However, the question was which is "the best" and in that regard I feel I made an appropriate judgement.
Have you done an ABX test?
If not then you're being silly.
Even the guys are http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/ have a hard time with abx tests now, one guy joked it destroyed his ego
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45644
Similar threads
