QUOTE (fanerman91 @ Nov 20 2013, 18:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is there any consensus on what format is best at ~256kbps or higher?
On this forum? I don't believe so.
QUOTE (fanerman91 @ Nov 20 2013, 18:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
At that bitrate does it matter?
For all but a minuscule proportion of killer samples, and possibly people who are both trained and gifted to be able to spot artifacts, no. For those situations, I doubt one single codec does better than all the rest. I have not seen any worthwhile data that indicates a clear winner, though that doesn't mean there isn't any. That said, this type of speculation is pointless, just as it is pointless to ask people who do not have another person's ears to tell that person what he hears. The bottom line is if you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter. If you can then you are in a unique position to choose accordingly.
QUOTE (fanerman91 @ Nov 20 2013, 18:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd prefer to encode through foobar, so I was thinking of Nero, but the plot on the first page has Nero at the bottom of the pack at 96 kbps.
Foobar2000 can be configured to use QAAC (a command line program to encode using Apple Quick Time) and any other codec that works from the command line.