"Stimpy" wrote


All I can say is I listened very carefully to various encoding methods and
bitrates before deciding on 320kbps MP3 18 months or so back. If I'd have
heard anything specifically negative about 320 I'd have used 256. Not
quite
sure what you mean by 'spitchy' but I don't hear anything unwelcome in any
of my 320s. I did think of sticking with 'raw' WAV but I genuinely
couldn't tell the difference between a selction of WAV rips and 320kbps
MP3s
of the same CDs.

Having said all that there was, to me, virtually no audible difference
between 256 and 320kbps MP3. I went with 320 merely because I thought it
made sense to go with the highest bit rate I could. After all, disk space
is all but free these days and will only get cheaper


OK, that's quite reassuring - like I say, I'm damned if I can hear the
difference!

I guess I can rip them again in the future if I feel the need to - I'll
leave them at 256 for now.