MP3: V0 or 320?

I'll rip a CD or something to v0 and aim to get a vbr when on slsk, but if I end up with 320 I'll just stick with it.

MP3 is an entity not only of quality, but also of space. If space is not a problem, why go to 320? lossless is waiting for you.

I use both, though I prefer v0 for its smaller size (which means then that I can put more on my mp3 player)

Funny thread to pop up now; I've spent the last three days ripping my entire CD collection as FLAC and deleting the mp3s....

320 or V0

also, for FLAC, do I need a converter to play those files on iTunes to put on my pod?

64 kbps. I need to fit all my music on my ipod.

  On 11/10/2010 at 3:25 PM, halisray said:

320 or V0 also, for FLAC, do I need a converter to play those files on iTunes to put on my pod?

yes

Prefer FLAC for home listening/archiving. But I'm fine with V2 for portable listening.

  On 11/10/2010 at 4:17 PM, Capsaicin said:

64 kbps. I need to fit all my music on my ipod.

fKiN lol bRo

with hard drive space being so cheap these days i still don't understand Flac, i'd rather use wave or Aiff, more convenient to rip to this format and to read it. Lots of host sequencer programs & media players can't read or write flac, most cd burning programs can't burn flac to an audio cd. saving 50% of space doesn't seem worth it to me for the inconvenience of the format.

Maybe some flac users here can convert with me...?

You cant tag wav as I found out. That pretty bollox

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:37 PM, Awepittance said:

with hard drive space being so cheap these days i still don't understand Flac, i'd rather use wave or Aiff, more convenient to rip to this format and to read it. Lots of host sequencer programs & media players can't read or write flac, most cd burning programs can't burn flac to an audio cd. saving 50% of space doesn't seem worth it to me for the inconvenience of the format.

Maybe some flac users here can convert with me...?

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:42 PM, chassis said:

You cant tag wav as I found out. That pretty bollox

Well i use Apple Lossless , which is basically FLAC for the Ipod

i was never a big fan of tagging anyways, i feel like an old man with tagging it's always irritating to me to make my own tags. keep trying to convince me though im sure there's gotta be a couple more compelling reasons i'm missing.

(edit: i do tag mp3s though, however if i reserved only a part of my library for high quality files, flac or wave i wouldn't care if those were tagged or not since my Ipod wouldn't play them anyways)

wtf??? you don't tag?? how do you live with yourself , i would kill myself if a had an untagged/unorganized library.

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:50 PM, Awepittance said:

i was never a big fan of tagging anyways, i feel like an old man with tagging it's always irritating to me to make my own tags. keep trying to convince me though im sure there's gotta be a couple more compelling reasons i'm missing.

i say that the benefits of having the extra space allowed by the use of FLAC outweighs the fact that i have to use something such as VLC to play my digital files (or convert to another format if used with some device that doesn't support FLAC).

you say that the benefits of using WAV or AIFF files outweighs the fact that you get more space to use for music when using FLAC, because you don't necessarily have to mess around with converting file formats.

poetatoe, putato

Tagging means just like name - artist - album right? Because I can see a big use for that.

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:55 PM, chassis said:

Tagging means just like name - artist - album right? Because I can see a big use for that.

Oh sure, take all the mystery out of it.

  On 11/10/2010 at 8:52 PM, Boxing Day said:

wtf??? you don't tag?? how do you live with yourself , i would kill myself if a had an untagged/unorganized library.

i do with mp3s and the like, i'm just saying that if i were to use a format as large sized as flac i'd move to waves because all the programs i currently use on the mac (Toast-cd burning, Cubase/Logic-audioediting/musicmaking, Itunes-cdripping) do not support flac . I think the only one that does support it is VLC. I suppose i could find a whole new suite of progs to use to revolve around my flac hobby.

If compability is the problem ( and you use Mac) just use apple lossless , like I said is a more friendly version of flac

Been a LoooooonG time since i was on a Mac but have to second the apple lossless suggestion if you have compatibility issues - honestly, I thought the format sounded great, even though the files seem a little smaller than a "lossless" file should be. *shrugs* If I had an iPOD and not a Cowon, would probably go that route.

  On 11/10/2010 at 9:40 PM, T35513R said:

even though the files seem a little smaller than a "lossless" file should be. *shrugs*

that's the Apple 'magic' at work

Apple lossless sucks. You won't get accurate with it. Just stick to FLAC and convert to some other format whenever you need to.

^ Lossless is Lossless , don't be a fool.

  On 11/10/2010 at 9:40 PM, T35513R said:

even though the files seem a little smaller than a "lossless" file should be. *shrugs* If I had an iPOD and not a Cowon, would probably go that route.

What are you talking about ??? , i have done some testing after reading your comment and the file size is pretty much the same.

Apple Lossless uses only 1 level of compression , FLAC has like 9 (0-8) , the lower the level the larger the size of the file , maybe you were using a low level of compression when you compared those two.

I was horrified to find out recently that my favourite album has been 192kbs the entire time I've had it on my iTunes.