![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
With the EAC settings I am using, the MP3 files aren't being saved at a constant 256 kbps after all, but rather with a variable bit rate (which is supposed to be better than a constant bit rate).
My EAC LAME parameters include "V 2 --vbr-new" which (supposedly?) averages around 190 kbps.
"V 5" averages around 130 kbps.
"V 9" averages around 65 kbps.
From what I can tell, files encoded as "V 5" are about 2/3 the size of "V 2" files.
Files encoded as "V 9" are about 1/3 the size of "V 2" files.
I compared a V9-encoded file to a V2-encoded file (using Foobar2000's ABX comparator), and *finally* noticed a tiny difference in sound quality. Some high notes were missing in the V9 version. I didn't notice it on my stereo system speakers; the difference only became apparent to me when I switched over to my laptop's built-in speakers (which filter out many of the low notes).
Foobar2000 also lets you re-encode MP3 files from a higher quality/bit-rate to a lower quality/bit-rate.
I think I will continue ripping my CD's at the higher quality, and then maybe make extra copies re-encoded to smaller sizes for use on my MP3 player. The re-encoding part goes much faster than the ripping.
My EAC LAME parameters include "V 2 --vbr-new" which (supposedly?) averages around 190 kbps.
"V 5" averages around 130 kbps.
"V 9" averages around 65 kbps.
From what I can tell, files encoded as "V 5" are about 2/3 the size of "V 2" files.
Files encoded as "V 9" are about 1/3 the size of "V 2" files.
I compared a V9-encoded file to a V2-encoded file (using Foobar2000's ABX comparator), and *finally* noticed a tiny difference in sound quality. Some high notes were missing in the V9 version. I didn't notice it on my stereo system speakers; the difference only became apparent to me when I switched over to my laptop's built-in speakers (which filter out many of the low notes).
Foobar2000 also lets you re-encode MP3 files from a higher quality/bit-rate to a lower quality/bit-rate.
I think I will continue ripping my CD's at the higher quality, and then maybe make extra copies re-encoded to smaller sizes for use on my MP3 player. The re-encoding part goes much faster than the ripping.