I know I have asked this before, but things change so often I want to make sure it is still true.

Background
Infinity Kappa Perfect Speakers and Kappa Perfect Sub
PPI 6 channel Amp.
(External Crossover once I find one I like)
About 22k songs over 2300 Cd’s now (no downloaded music I own them all and I am converting my 8-tracks, cassettes and Records to CD’s a few at a time when I can find them for sale or order them online) (You wouldn’t believe how hard it was to find Pop Music by the “M” on Cd)



I am pulling out my Empeg this weakened and sending it off to Stuart Euans for some much needed TLC
Encoder replacement: $40
Dimmer fix: $15
Lighting kit: $44.99
Green Buttons: $39.99
32 MB of RAM (is 32 enough for the new file format I will choose?)
Smoke Len

This gives me some time to finish re-ripping all my songs I am looking for the best quality short of making them all wav files. I am currently running 3A8 (wish it booted up a bit faster but other then that no issues yet)
I am currently re-ripping all my Cd’s to wav files and will encode them once I figure out which format is the best quality.

I have to admit I am a bit confused I am using EAC to do the ripping, I had used Lame for MP3, but MP3’s while good just doesn’t cut the mustard for my stereo.

Lame has both a High Quality and a Voice setting (which is better)

Flacc is supported but roughly 4 times the size of a MP3 file, not a huge issue but an issue none the less (is it worth the space)

Vob and Obb (I know nothing about them)

MP3Pro (yet one more unknown format)

My signature has a link for a quick guide to using the LAME settings mentioned by Roger.

So can you explain or point me to someplace that explains

"-alt-preset standard, extreme, or insane"

From your command line, run "lame --alt-preset help".

There are no hard and fast simple answers to questions like this because the best answer is dependant on each person and their hearing.

Given how little you know about the different codecs and stuff (hydrogenaudio.org is a great forum to get started with the technical details, for example they have extensive threads about reccomended lame versions and settings, as well as encoding to audio transparency and ABX testing) you're probably best off just using mp3 and going back to 2.00 final.

Using Ogg Vorbis or FLAC isn't unreasonable, but will require a lot more of your time and effort to understand and keep up with. Just like ripping to FLAC and then transcoding according to what codec you prefer at any given time.

I would try out --alt-preset standard and if it doesn't sound good enough to you, step up to extreme, and if that doesn't sound good enough try insane. And if that doesn't sound good enough you either have incredible hearing perception (and no compressed audio format is going to be good enough) or you're victim to a placebo effect.

--Nathan

...but MP3’s while good just doesn’t cut the mustard for my stereo.


I wonder... Have you tried a more or less blind comparison?

By that, I mean pick a track with a lot of dynamic range, full spectral balance, good clean recording. In other words, a good test track.

Rip and encode to MP3 at a high quality setting -- say 256 KBPS variable bit rate.

Now, set up a test playlist on your empeg. Put the high quality MP3 file in that playlist a half dozen times, and put the same track in the playlist as a WAV file half a dozen times.

Turn shuffle on, and listen to the test playlist without looking at the empeg screen, making notes about whether you think the currently playing track is WAV or MP3.

When you're done, go back and compare your notes to the actual shuffled playlist order and see whether you got them right. I'll be surprised if you can really, truly tell the difference between the high quality MP3s and a WAV files.

tanstaafl.

This is what is called ABX testing (as in A sample, B sample, and the X sample which is either the A or the B), and there is a great deal of info about it (and test results from a wide range of people) on hydrogenaudio.org. There are applications which will even track your results across multiple tests, providing sufficent scientific rigor to avoid all but the most determined troll or flamish conversations.

--Nathan

Your link led me to this interesting article: a "voodoo audiophile" conducted a (not quite double) blind listening test of power cords (with predictable "hit ratio" of 49%). The artice is surprisingly honest, given the author's "bent" (he did try, in a rather charming way, to discredit the whole idea of objective testing and measurement). The most interesting part to me are quotes from other chap, a "skeptic", who essentially says "'high end' power cords and 'CD demagnetizers', of course, do nothing; but, if you feel you enjoy your systems more using them, by all means go for it!". There is a very thin line between a placebo provider and a fraud...

Only had a quick skim through the article but it does seem to be done pretty well.

The people that claim the whole double blind testing method is flawed have some bizarre arguments. Like you need to break them in for a certain number of hours before they'll work to their full potential and unplugging/replugging loses the "magic".

I concede that interconnect cables may make a difference if the stock ones you're use a little more than rusty barbed wire with a badly oxidised plug on each end but super special power cords are just crap. That last 2 meters from the wall to your device is nothing compared to the kilometers of cable between you and the powerstation. I'll go get the power company to replace all the cable with super expensive oxygen free copper which has been drawn by hand under a full moon on the top of Everest by a Buddist Monk who only does this once every 50 years