[Jim]

ripping at 320kbps in mp3 isn't the best way. Use Lame variable bitrate for the best possible quality mp3's

[unclesomebody]

wav is no better than flac (infact it's inferior).  Use flac if you have compatible programs (which you probably do).

If you do insist on using mp3 then encode using the highest quality settings you can. Obviously encoding using CBR at 320kbps is better than VBR (sorry Jim, you're wrong) but it just takes up more more. However, space is cheap, just order a couple of 500Gb drives.

[andy_e]

I don't understand how WAV can be worse than FLAC when 32bit WAV is what music production programs (which most music nowadays is made with) use as default?

Anyway let us agree that 44kHz sampling is dead, bring on 192kHz! 

[unclesomebody]

I don't understand how WAV can be worse than FLAC when 32bit WAV is what music production programs (which most music nowadays is made with) use as default?

Anyway let us agree that 44kHz sampling is dead, bring on 192kHz! 

I meant inferior in the sense it is a wasteful codec, but for music production obviously you'd use wav because it's a step less in the workflow.

And what are you on about, sampling rate of 192KHz? I thought that above 48KHz you started getting all sorts of freaky effects like repeated frequencies and unwated noise etc.

[andy_e]

i'm not sure, but i read an article in computer music that claims 192kHz is better because it doesn't just cover the human frequencies (20 - 20000Hz) and they give much more depth to tunes (allowing for more complete waveforms, less "bouncing" of unwanted frequencies that could crop up from high frequency reverb etc. The best sample rate to use is apparently 88200Hz until computers become more powerful so they can deal with the sampling rate.

[Houdini]

Sorry to butt-in once more w/ my unapologetic ludditism . . .   But I'll give you one extremely sound reason why vinyl is superior:

I just purchased Barra Head's LP - Go get beat up, for €13.  The CD also cost €13, but w/ the LP came a dropcard w/ which I just visited a website & downloaded all 10 tracks @ 256 kbps (room for improvement there, but . . . next time perhaps).  G R A T I S !!    The CD gave nowt away for free.

Beat THAT digifreaks.  (The band Shellac also give away a free CD w/ each LP.)


Come armageddon you'll be bangin' on my door for tunes, matey   
O - kay!  I'm fookin' orf!

[Serpico]

i'm not sure, but i read an article in computer music that claims 192kHz is better because it doesn't just cover the human frequencies (20 - 20000Hz) and they give much more depth to tunes (allowing for more complete waveforms, less "bouncing" of unwanted frequencies that could crop up from high frequency reverb etc. The best sample rate to use is apparently 88200Hz until computers become more powerful so they can deal with the sampling rate.

Eh?
The industry standard sample rate now is 96khz. I've never heard of anybody using, or any desks/ADs/recorders or outboard that can handle anything more than that.
The whole extended freq' response creating audible subharmonics is bollocks, it happens when the mic picks up the original sound, and it's that resulting summation/cancellation/aliasing that is recorded and then replayed - there's no need for it to happen at the loudspeaker to still be audible.
I've never come across 88.2khz used as a sample rate either, but it would make more sense for CDs as it's double 44.1khz. The industry standard 96khz, and 48khz before it, are less than ideal for down-sampling to 44.1khz as they're not exactly divisible by 44.1khz and so are not as accurate when down-sampled, particularly time wise.