MP3 encoding options

Mark · 03-08-2009, 18:18

Not sure if this should be in C&C or here, but meh.

I'm currently re-encoding my CD collection (for the umpteenth time) using ABR-256kbit encoding. At home I drive the audio through decent hardware - Denon and KEF in the office, Denon and Mission in the living room. On the move, I use CX 500 headphones. I'm happy with the quality.

However, this format seems to eat MP3 player batteries for breakfast. Newer players seem better than old ones, but still. So, my options are:

Carry on and live with it.
Re-encode (again) at CBR-320. 30% disk space hit, which isn't too bad. But would I notice the quality change, or any difference in battery life?
Use MediaMonkey to downsample to CBR-160 when copying files to MP3 players. I get high quality at home and decent quality on the move (when quality isn't so important anyway) with better battery life. If I do this, is the choice of source encoding (ABR-256 or CBR-320) likely to affect the quality of the downsampled files in any noticeable way?
Encode as FLAC and downsample. I'm no audiophile and I don't think I'll be able to tell the difference. I will however be able to spot the 300% disk space I've lost.

I don't know enough to answer this. Can anyone help?

PS - I do volume levelling and all that jazz. Audiophiles will cry foul but it saves me reaching for the volume control at every turn when I've got the player on shuffle.

03-08-2009, 18:18	#1
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	MP3 encoding options Not sure if this should be in C&C or here, but meh. I'm currently re-encoding my CD collection (for the umpteenth time) using ABR-256kbit encoding. At home I drive the audio through decent hardware - Denon and KEF in the office, Denon and Mission in the living room. On the move, I use CX 500 headphones. I'm happy with the quality. However, this format seems to eat MP3 player batteries for breakfast. Newer players seem better than old ones, but still. So, my options are: Carry on and live with it. Re-encode (again) at CBR-320. 30% disk space hit, which isn't too bad. But would I notice the quality change, or any difference in battery life? Use MediaMonkey to downsample to CBR-160 when copying files to MP3 players. I get high quality at home and decent quality on the move (when quality isn't so important anyway) with better battery life. If I do this, is the choice of source encoding (ABR-256 or CBR-320) likely to affect the quality of the downsampled files in any noticeable way? Encode as FLAC and downsample. I'm no audiophile and I don't think I'll be able to tell the difference. I will however be able to spot the 300% disk space I've lost. I don't know enough to answer this. Can anyone help? PS - I do volume levelling and all that jazz. Audiophiles will cry foul but it saves me reaching for the volume control at every turn when I've got the player on shuffle.