Edgy01

I think the best speed for the 997S is around 182. ;-)

Much below that and the quality suffers.

Dan

ronmart

To my knowledge the 997 can't play back WMA files. It only supports the MP3 format, so you are ripping to the wrong format too.

128 is considered CD quality and is better than you get from the radio, so that is a good compromise for volume. For quality the higher is better.

uzj100

Have all of mine recorded as Johnny C recommends. They play and sound fine. Of course my ears are so wasted from Who and Led Zep concerts that about all I do anymore is "feel" rather than listen to music. I've got noise in my ears all the time.

Riad

OK, here's my take... iPods compress the **** out of music so much you lose all dynamic range. This maybe OK for a 50 Cent CD, but if you're listening to anything with instruments then I would suggest ripping to the highest sample rate, 192 is good.

Mp3's are the death nell of music... it's so painful to listen to at lower compression settings.

When I mix songs I actually listen to the mix on an iPod because 99% of kids are listening to these god forsaken things.

OCBen

I'm with you there, Rob. I don't have an iPod and I don't think I'll ever get one either. And I'm not fond of MP3 music either. Dynamic range is what quality in music is all about.

I used to by an audiophile (used to, because I no longer keep up with the latest) and I used to finesse and sweat the details when it came to selecting audio components. I would buy the best speakers with the best response curves that showed no dropoff until at least 20kHz. It didn't matter if I could only hear up to 18kHz. I wanted 20kHz freq response, just so I wouldn't miss out on a 20kHz note if it ever came through my system, which was guaranteed to handle it. I wanted to make sure my speakers would as well.

Anyway, I still like a broad dynamic range and I still love to hear music in its highest quality form, even though I may not hear it. I still like to know that it's there.

texas911

iPods don't compress music, it only plays the music that's already compressed. Thus a 192mp3 song will sound better than a 128 mp3. The songs you buy from the iTunes music store is rated at 128 BUT its in AAC format NOT mp3 format, which is equivalent to 192 mp3. Unfortunately, AAC is proprietary and will only play on your iPod, you can't burn it into an mp3 disc.

For ripping mp3's, go with 192, hard drives are so much cheaper now, space shouldn't be an issue.

FlyingLow

I've been downloading/ripping music since the dawn of Napster. I started with some of the higher bit rates and tried some lower(128 bps). Over the last 4-5 years I have settled on a 160 bps standard. This rate will save you some room and still give you as much fidelity as most human ears can hear in the mp3/wma format. You might try an experiment that I did, record the same song at different rates and see what you like. This is what made me settle on 160 bps.

Vancouver83LTD

here's the best way to compare
rip a song at 96kbps
rip a song at 128.
BIG difference....

rotthaus

I have always ripped at 320 kbps (for personal use only, of course). Disks have gotten cheaper faster than I have filled them. I also still have an old copy of Audio Catalyst that happily digests things the XP and OSX boxes will not. I also keep an OS9 mac with iTunes 2 as a backup. (Very forgiving, clean, simple, and immune to Sony’s cd driver assassin.)

And I do not have an iPod. (At least not yet.)

Of course audio DVD and HD cd’s will probably force me to rip all the current stuff out by the roots and start over.

Greg
2005 Carrera S Coupe, Lapis Blue Metallic, Carrera Classic Wheels, PCCB, Bose, Sport Shifter, Sport Seats
Rennlist member #050419-5832

Riad

Obviously the iPod itself isn't hardware compression, it's an mp3 player. However, it's the cause of the craze and as younger kids start to listen to music though these players they will have zero appreciation for what the music is supposed to sound like. Not to mention half of them will be deaf before they are 30, really try to keep the volume low on those things and buy very good headphones like the Shure E5's.

OCBen

Do those have gel filled liners? I remember having a pair that purportedly provided surround sound. Don't remember the brand offhand. It was expensive and a bit weighty, that's all I remember.

996toomey

OK, tried ripping at the highest wmp offers 192 and burned as a data disc. Plays fine but in the burning process it goes through and converts all to something before burning have no clue what it converts to.

Will try the next one at 168 and burn as highmat auidio cd and see if there is any difference.

FlyingLow

Ben, I got a pair of Shure E3c's through one of the sites listed on CNET for $179. My wife borrowed them one day and I haven't seen them since. Here's my chance to upgrade to the E4's, you should check them out.

Editorial: BTW, I'm into quality not the marketing cool factor that comes from the Apple marketing machine. My Creative Zen Touch has better sound quality, twice the battery life, and plays more file types, including WMA. No, I don't work for them. Flame on!

texas911

Oh I agree, but those are the kids who would have bought tapes of albums when they were available. They don't really care. I rip music for my car and iPod but still buy CD's to listen to my regular home stereo. Mostly jazz stuff.

Vancouver83LTD

I rarely buy music - and if i do i usually go to the used record store - an entire album for $3 out of pocket (after $5 trade back in)
The fact is the record companies make huge profits - they're not going broke, and the big labels buy up artists that are similar to other big bands they have, full their head full of garbage about how they'll be huge, then shelve them - meanwhile they've bought up all their intellectual material for the next 10-20 years
Sorry, this is why I don't go to starbucks and i instead go to the local shop, delaney's. Hostile corporate tactics = no respect from me. Not to mention the artists earn very little from the actual CD sales, and they don't really need the money anyways (Bono has a pool in the shape of his own head)
the only way I'm going to buy a CD is if it's a small band that hasn't gone huge.
And as long as downloading music is 100% legal in Canada, I'll keep doing it. and I'll keep sharing my cd's with friends as well. I want any of you guys who grew up in the 80's to tell me you have NEVER shared a mix tape, or copied casettes that belonged to friends.