[GMas]

BTW, how do you install this? and select it when enconding?

And finally, what is the difference, in terms of perception (grossly speaking), between 192 and 320 kbps in mp3? Is it worth the extra file size?

Thanks,
Gmas.

[rjenkinson]

encode a song at both 192 and 320 kbps and listen to both. if you can't tell any difference, use 192 kbps. if you can, 320 kbps is for you.

-r.

[GMas]

Originally Posted by rjenkinson

encode a song at both 192 and 320 kbps and listen to both. if you can't tell any difference, use 192 kbps. if you can, 320 kbps is for you.

-r.

Thanks!!

I tried this and I do hear a difference. I also hear a difference, I think (might be placebo), between the LAME 320 and the itunes 320. Is this possible or am I psyching myself out? It just seems that the LAME sounds warmer, richer and more true to life....

I know that many audiophiles say if you hear the difference then go with your perception, but there has to be an objective standard to tell whether I am just fooling myself, right?

BTW, LAME is so much slower than itunes!!!!

Gmas.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by GMas

I also hear a difference, I think (might be placebo), between the LAME 320 and the itunes 320. Is this possible or am I psyching myself out? It just seems that the LAME sounds warmer, richer and more true to life....

[...]

BTW, LAME is so much slower than itunes!!!!

And you've already realized why.

[GMas]

so its slower because of the higher quality huh? Well, it seems to follow the universal rule of good things take time...


Gmas.