Ok I need to reopen this since I have a related question.
Ok so I'm updating some of my music to higher quality to replace the ones I've had since 8GB HDDs were the norm. But some of the songs I rip or get off ITunes that are 320KBps are equal or smaller in file size to the ones I'm replacing at 128-192 KBps. That's not right, right? Or is compression just a lot better?
Basically. In a nutshell, Variable BitRate encoding uses more data when there's a lot going on in the music, and less when there isn't. You get a really nice copy with a lower filesize.
I'm pretty sure that's right, at least.
A true 320 Kbps track will always maintain that bitrate, no matter how simple or complex the music is, and will always have a 100% predictable file size. Thus, a 4 minute track will always be 9600 KB, excluding tags/container overhead, no matter if the format used is AAC, MP3, OGG or something else.
ALAC will work on the iPod.
Well this is what I figured, I'd expect a 320 file to be at least 2MB per minute of music.
I'm gonna experiment with this but very little music of mine is ripped out of like 1600 songs and thus I dont have the original source to produce a lossless copy.
Is this something that might happen with a VBR song? Quality is dipped a bit at certain parts and it sounds different for it? I've tried it without headphones and while its less obvious it does seem to remain while on a 5.1 setup.
It's for this reason that for me and my shitty hearing, sometimes a 128 kbps rip is preferable to a 320.