8/7     I'm thinking of ripping my music collection.
        Should I do 128 mp3?  Or WMA?
        \_ .rm!!
           \_ ??
        \_ r3mix.  I'm kind of mad I sold all my cds back and ripping them only
           to 128kb/s. r3mix will leave you with an audiophile optimized var
           bit enc that winamp can stream over ssl.
        \_ he means http://r3mix.net, which recommends Exact Audio Copy using LAME at
           vbr.
           \- Why not use OggVorbis?  <DEAD>www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/index.html<DEAD>
             Before you flame ogg, please first state if you have ever tried
             the 1.0 release.  -alexb
             \_ the name is too damn dumb. like most "open" projects...
             \_ Yes.  O.V. is superior at low (>=128) bit rates, but grossly
                inferior if you care about quality.  r3mix is THE STANDARD.
                -dans
                \_ I've read this comment before but it does not match my
                   personal experience.  When I tested I could hear the
                   difference between 128 and 160bps mp3, but 192bps mp3
                   sounded the same as CD audio.  128pbs ogg and CD was hard
                   to distinguish, and at 160pbs ogg sounded like CD.
                   Perhaps my biases clouded my observations.  Can you give
                   me a reference to a double blind test or similar?
                   - alexb
                   \_ does looking into a mirror and saying "I'm right" count?
           \_ Actually what he was referring to was the fact that lame now has
              the http://r3mix.net settings easily accessible with a single flag:
              lame --r3mix
        \_ despite what all the people above say, --alt-preset standard is
           recommended over --r3mix, even by the LAME authors. --jameslin
        \_ fuck this shit.  use libphilcompress.