. . . am planning on converting everything to mp3. My plan is to use the drag-and-drop mode b/c to me that sounds easier. Sound good?
Just be aware that ‘converting’ 1 lossy format to another is going to result in . . . “lossier” files (read: much lower quality recordings)!
Drag & drop (to me) may not be “easier” but . . . I have the control over what goes on and what doesn’t. If it takes a few more mouse-clicks to do it this way vs. a “1-click sync” I’ll glady do it.
@gabe565 wrote:
What I did to convert a lot of my mp3s was (Not convert from a different format, but from 192 to 128 kbps) I got MediaMonkey and set it to convert to 128 mp3, just left it overnight, and it did the job!
Why would you further degrade an already mediocre bit-rate (192 kbps) to a marginally listenable one (128)? Just to fit a few more songs in?
The difference between the 2 size-wise is approx. 30MB per CD. That’s miniscule when you’re talking a storage capacity of 8 - 16 GB with the addition of an SDHC card (getting cheaper every day)! Do you want to have ‘bragging rights’ that you own one of the “best-sounding” mp3 players on the market, or that you have the most number of songs on it? By lowering the bit-rate of your music you will indeed acheive the latter, but at the cost of the former! You don’t need to be that stingy!
Basically it boils down to “Quality vs. Quantity.”
@gabe565 wrote:
What I did to convert a lot of my mp3s was (Not convert from a different format, but from 192 to 128 kbps) I got MediaMonkey and set it to convert to 128 mp3, just left it overnight, and it did the job!
Why would you further degrade an already mediocre bit-rate (192 kbps) to a marginally listenable one (128)? Just to fit a few more songs in?
The difference between the 2 size-wise is approx. 30MB per CD. That’s miniscule when you’re talking a storage capacity of 8 - 16 GB with the addition of an SDHC card (getting cheaper every day)! Do you want to have ‘bragging rights’ that you own one of the “best-sounding” mp3 players on the market, or that you have the most number of songs on it? By lowering the bit-rate of your music you will indeed acheive the latter, but only at the cost of the former! You don’t need to be that stingy!
Basically it boils down to “Quality vs. Quantity.”
Will there be a noticeable sound difference? What bit rate should I use? I’m doing it this way because w/ MM it’s going to be a lot faster converting than re-ripping 100’s to 1000’s of Cd’s.
I deal w/ FLAC files a lot, so I know about the lossy/lossless formats. I just want to make sure that converting from m4a to mp3 won’t be a noticeable sound difference.
There probably is some loss in the process, but how noticeable it will be is debatable. The algorithms used to compress the two formats are likely quite similar, and actual loss in transcoding may not be that significant. I fretted over this when deciding whether to get music on iTunes or CD (in a case where the CD was considerably more expensive), but in the end it wasn’t bad at all.
I transcode using dbPowerAmp with the LAME MP3 encoder (arguably the best MP3 encoder today). MP4’s effectiveness is higher at lower bitrates; at higher bitrates, it won’t sound much different than a good MP3. What that means is, at anything lower than 192kbps, you’ll want to transcode to a higher bitrate MP3. I usually go 128kbps MP4 to 192kbps MP3, but that may be overkill.
The earbuds that you use will affect what you hear more than anything. Decent headphones will reveal the mudiness of 128kbps MP3s, but cheap earbuds (like the ones that come with the Fuze) often won’t (everything sounds pretty bad).
Just try a few for yourself.
Bitrate and filesize are directly correlated. A song encoded at 192kbps will be 50% larger than a song encoded at 128kbps. That means you can get half again as much music. If you don’t have a lot, maybe bitrate doesn’t matter. For the rest of us, its a tradeoff of size vs quality.
I don’t know if this will help or not but I started ripping our CD’s before we had a player… I am a audio file and have always been use to some nice home gear. I am very fussy in how something sounds on the home system * to fault* so I started ripping in MP3 at 256 bit rate. I got about 60 CD’s done at that bit rate before we got a Fuze or had any MP3 player. I loaded them onto the Fuze and they sounded so darn good I thought I would try some at 128 bit rate. You know I can’t hear the difference! I had 4 set’s of ear buds on the player and 3 sets of headphones and still could not hear the difference of the bit rate played! Yes I could hear the difference in the ear buds/phones. But to tell you the truth I really am 110% happy with the sound so much so I dumped the 256 bit rate for the 128 bit rate… I know your talking about converting and not just ripping your cd’s but thought you would want to know just in case you have to re rip your cd’s… Most won’t agree with me on this, heck I don’t even agree with my self on this one but I’m going by what I hear… I am considering myself lucky I guess!! Good luck! George
The Fuze sounds pretty good even down at 128. For most music, I find the default 160KBPS wma files from Rhapsody sound great.
For my long-haired classical habit, after spending years listening to concerts live, I find that the limitations of the lower bitrates begin to show, especially with the treble regions. For this, I run 192 or 256 for rips from CD. The Sansa is sensitive enough that the differences are apparent.
Overall, the trade between space and quality has been easily rectified by use of the µSD expansion port. I’m working on transferring my favorite performances on LP to µSD cards. Perhaps, I can label them with microdots, as noting the recordings would require a very sharp pen indeed. Actually, I’m transcribing notes onto the cards as text files.
