Should I convert all my MP3s to 192kbps?

you can get by with 128 kb/s easilynightshade85

Sure, why the hell not.TheCrimsonKoopa

[QUOTE="nightshade85"]you can get by with 128 kb/s easilyIwubYuna

Idk

I wouldn't, i would invest in a bigger HDD if you are low on space.bededog

Rule of thumb: NEVER transocde lossy->lossy. So, no. The space gain will be insignificant anyway.

If you are ripping music yourself to MP3 (i.e. from a CD source), it IS best to avoid 320 kbps, though. Use LAME V0, or V1/V2 if those are transparent to you.

If you're running low on space..definitely invest in a new HDD. Storage is dirt cheap these days.

I can notice a definite difference in the quality of the very high and very low frequencies at 192, but then again I record a lot of music and my ear is quite well tuned. I have all of mine as AAC files at 256. AAC files retain their sonic integrity much better than mp3's and are considerably smaller. Honestly, I didn't know people still used mp3's much anymore. They're pretty much obsolete.

I can notice a definite difference in the quality of the very high and very low frequencies at 192, but then again I record a lot of music and my ear is quite well tuned. I have all of mine as AAC files at 256. AAC files retain their sonic integrity much better than mp3's and are considerably smaller. Honestly, I didn't know people still used mp3's much anymore. They're pretty much obsolete.

Elephant_Couple

AAC is nice, but aoTuV-encoded Vorbis is supposedly the best lossy format for mid/high bitrates. My entire library is lossless on my PC, but I transcode to aoTuV Vorbis/Ogg q6 for my PMP (q6 is transparent to me.) Not sure how widely it's supported in the audio hardware realm, though.

Anyway, the filesize savings of AAC over LAME-encoded MP3 aren't that significant, especially at 256 kbps. Actually, you'll often end up with smaller files using LAME V0.. (which is also transparent to most.)

I do agree that LAME-encoded 192-CBR is sub-par quality-wise, though. Against V0 I can ABX 192-CBR quite consistently..far better than I can V0 against lossless.

[QUOTE="nightshade85"]you can get by with 128 kb/s easilyIwubYuna

No, i see a big hassle to save a tiny bit of HD space.......at that point i would just buy a new hard drive, you can get what 640gb maybe even 1TB for under $100 now.X360PS3AMD05

1TB drives have been under $100 USD for quite some time now.

I use a 1TB drive for my lossless library. 1TB is enough space to store something like 2,100 full-length albums in FLAC (at ~450MB per album.) That comes out to ~23,100 tracks if we assume 11 tracks per album.

It's a lot of damn space for purposes of music storage. Have fun filling that up if you use MP3s..you'll get far more mileage there.

Depends if you're someone who can notice the difference between CD quality and a 192kbps MP3, and whether it bugs you or not.

I rip most of my music at 320kbps now, or using lossless compression, because I've started to notice the differences and it bugs me.

Instead of using MP3's, how about useing a more recent and far better standard like AAC prehaps?

[QUOTE="TheCrimsonKoopa"]Sure, why the hell not.Bourbons3

Wow, thanks for reviving this relic. I managed to laugh at my own post :lol:Bourbons3

Idk

dunl12496

you can get by with 128 kb/s easilynightshade85