Most of the music I've downloaded has only been played through my crappy computer speakers, or through my headphones. So I've found that 128kbps has been fine to compress to without any noticeable quality loss. I'm planning to get a car in the coming months and put a quality sound system in. So I'm wondering if I'll start to notice the difference in quality from playing a 128kbps mp3 opposed to a 320kbps one. Any recommendations to what quality I should be after? Please post anything related to music quality. I've never really looked into this at all, and just assumed 128kbps would be fine.

You will definitely hear a quality difference as the music gets louder.

128 is complete crap. I think 320 is even bad when you try to play it on a quality system. (but I'm a musician so my ears just really pick up on that stuff).

I compress my stuff into 500 kbps ogg vorbis, seems to be the best. I'd use a lossless codec, but then the size is just ridiculous.

But yeah, it will suck if you try to play it on a quality//loud system.

I'm a musician and recording engineer, and I've found that 128kbps MP3s aren't very good. AAC isn't bad though (iTunes format). Most consumer systems will make them sound good anyway.

If you're listening on studio monitors, though, that's another story entirely.

noob question; can you re-encode an mp3 to be higher quality (and have it actually sound better, not just be a larger file)?

No.

[quote author=Tazo link=topic=17147.msg174797#msg174797 date=1194912437]
noob question; can you re-encode an mp3 to be higher quality (and have it actually sound better, not just be a larger file)?
[/quote]
Each lossy file structure removes different information that it thinks is most unlikely you will hear.  If you have, for an example, a single mp3 file, you know that it already has lost some quality because mp3 is a lossy file format.  If you then decide to convert it to something like ogg, then the converter for ogg will remove some more information.  Yes, some removal tactics overlap, but the highest quality you can go for is one that exactly equal to the original one, which is rare.

[quote author=FrostWraith link=topic=17147.msg174804#msg174804 date=1194926555]
[quote author=Tazo link=topic=17147.msg174797#msg174797 date=1194912437]
noob question; can you re-encode an mp3 to be higher quality (and have it actually sound better, not just be a larger file)?
[/quote]
Each lossy file structure removes different information that it thinks is most unlikely you will hear.  If you have, for an example, a single mp3 file, you know that it already has lost some quality because mp3 is a lossy file format.  If you then decide to convert it to something like ogg, then the converter for ogg will remove some more information.  Yes, some removal tactics overlap, but the highest quality you can go for is one that exactly equal to the original one, which is rare.
[/quote]

Unless you buy the CD... :P

[quote author=MrRaza link=topic=17147.msg174829#msg174829 date=1195025663]
[quote author=FrostWraith link=topic=17147.msg174804#msg174804 date=1194926555]
[quote author=Tazo link=topic=17147.msg174797#msg174797 date=1194912437]
noob question; can you re-encode an mp3 to be higher quality (and have it actually sound better, not just be a larger file)?
[/quote]
Each lossy file structure removes different information that it thinks is most unlikely you will hear.  If you have, for an example, a single mp3 file, you know that it already has lost some quality because mp3 is a lossy file format.  If you then decide to convert it to something like ogg, then the converter for ogg will remove some more information.  Yes, some removal tactics overlap, but the highest quality you can go for is one that exactly equal to the original one, which is rare.
[/quote]

Unless you buy the CD... :P
[/quote]

not necessarily, there are lossless codecs such as FLAC, which are lower in size than CD tracks but are the same quality.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=17147.msg174838#msg174838 date=1195064987]
not necessarily, there are lossless codecs such as FLAC, which are lower in size than CD tracks but are the same quality.
[/quote]

Same quality? If so, can you explain why there are diferent bitrates when ripping FLAC files? Why wouldn't you just go for the smallest one?

There shouldn't be bitrates for flac... it's lossless.

[quote]With FLAC you do not specify a bitrate like with some lossy codecs. It's more like specifying a quality with Vorbis or MPC, except with FLAC the quality is always "lossless" and the resulting bitrate is roughly proportional to the amount of information in the original signal. You cannot control the bitrate much and the result can be from around 100% of the input rate (if you are encoding noise), down to almost 0 (encoding silence).[/quote]

Weird. I had an experience way back when where a media player asked me to pick the bitrate I wished to rip FLAC with.

It might be fuzzy, but after checking the flac encoder command-line options, I guess I was wrong/confused. :(

Best codec to use is LAME 3.97, best switch to use is -V 0 or --alt-preset extreme, same thing. If you need the best how to on ripping your CD's, use:

http://jiggafellz.isa-geek.net/eac/


Converting one lossy format (MP3, AAC, etc) to another will result in worse quality regardless of how you do it.