MP3: V0 or 320?

[Guest ruiagnelo]

dunno if there has been such discussion previously, but i have been thinking about this lately.

 

according to logic, shouldn't 320 have the highest quality, since it is a constant bitrate?

 

on the other hand, V0 sounds very good and it doesn't occupy that much space when compared to the first.

 

 

personally i can't tell the difference between the two, so i am definitely chosing V0, because i can get more music within less space.

 

what does watmm think on this?

[oscillik]

78bit/83¾KHz for me, all the way

[sneaksta303]

flac if you have enough HD space. Generally i go for 320.

[Guest wake]

+1 v0

[Guest ruiagnelo]

flac if you have enough HD space. Generally i go for 320.

 

FLAC is king!

but i can't afford to have all my stuff in such format, because there is simply no space

[Guest Enter a new display name]

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

[mcbpete]

+1 v0

[Guest ruiagnelo]

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

 

thanks for bringing the graph.

 

it's actually a visual representation of what my ears can tell me.

 

if this is somehow accurate, V0 pretty much wins.

[azatoth]

How do you quantify "quality" ?

[Boxing Day]

Once you go flac you'll never go back.

[chassis]

How do you quantify "quality" ?

 

I presume its a ratio of frequencies present to frequencies excluded.

[oscillik]

How do you quantify "quality" ?

 

I presume its a ratio of frequencies present to frequencies excluded.

you put too much faith in a graph on the internet

[Guest Calx Sherbet]

here we go...

[chassis]

How do you quantify "quality" ?

 

I presume its a ratio of frequencies present to frequencies excluded.

you put too much faith in a graph on the internet

 

I was talking about in general. I wasn't really referring to the graph. I presume theyre all compared against lossless and how many frequencies are included/excluded.

[Guest Enter a new display name]

Yeah, I know the graph is not completely accurate. The average bitrate varies too much depending on the music that you convert into v0. Personally, I prefer v0 files.

[Guest Promo]

I should try Flac but generally I do find it hard to hear the difference between a 320 and wav file.

[chim]

I like v0 because it takes less time to convert than 320, it must be better and more high tec.

[funkaholic]

320 usually, but if im making a mix cd flac/wav pref, doubt i or the listener will be able to tell but it makes me feel secure inside

[40days]

Once you go flac you'll never go back.

Well said.

 

The point here does not really lie in bitrate but the fact that you can verify your flac files that they were properly ripped, thus eliminating all possibilities of audible errors such as glitches and broken gaps, unless it's in the mastering. There's more, such as not having to worry about how the "low" bitrates of mp3s would correlate with your new hi-fi audio equipment, but I find the first reason most valuable.

 

V0 is still great and better than 320 as stated before in this thread, but since hard disk space nowadays is virtually no issue I'd go for flac whenever possible.

[kaini]

320s for autechre, snd, alva noto, some dubstep, and a few other things

v0s are fine for everything else

[kokoon]

i recently did a an ABX test with 24bit 44.1kHz WAVs and V2 mp3s.

 

i have never downloaded anything beyond V0 since. V0 instead of V2. just to be on the safe side.

[GORDO]

v2 ftw

[dr lopez]

Once you go flac you'll never go back.

but then you delete the bad songs.

[Hautlle]

I usually do 320 for my own stuff. Don't care if it's 320 or v0 when I'm DLing

[Guest Enter a new display name]

Once you go flac you'll never go back.

but then you delete the bad songs.

Once you discover Aphex Twin, you never go back.