LAME: -V 2 vs. -V 0

helo.
since i cant vote (Not a poll here) i just leave my 2 cents..

From what i've understood:
the sound quality of 192 CBR is roughly the same as that of LAME V2 (which has a ~190 target -- but which is seldom reached in practice, i.e. never with so-called historical recordings à la Horowitz, Glenn Gould, Schnabel, etc.). the main difference being the resulting file size.
[1] a 'full-sound' 80mins. Audio-CD ripped @ 192 CBR ===> ~120MB (1A sound)
[2] a 'cheap-sound' 80mins. Audio-CD ripped @ LAME V2 ===> ~60MB (1A sound)

But since i am used to 100-120MB sized RAR-archives per disc (classical music) i now tend to rip to LAME V0...to reach "my targeted" 100-120MB's. Hence:

[3] a 'full-sound' 80mins. Audio-CD ripped @ LAME V0 ===> ~120MB (1A+ sound)
[4] a 'cheap-sound' 80mins. Audio-CD ripped @ LAME V0 ===> ~100MB (1A+ sound)

[1] vs. [3] === same file size target reached. [3] has higher sound quality.
[1] vs. [4] === my file size target reached. [4] has higher sound quality, and even smaller file size.

With LAME V2 i never reach my file size target...and its sound quality is always less than LAME V0 (per definitionem), so why should i stick to LAME V2? Ergo, LAME V0 is now my 1st choice. Even if i cant hear the sound quality difference between V2 and V0 (because my Sansa mp3-player is §$%&! and its headphones/earphones even more so )

i like the simple MP3 concept that 1.0min = 1.0MB(128cbr), or that 1 Audio-CD(74mins.) = 100MB(mp3). The LAME V2 setting ruins that beautiful calculation principle.



Jam it back in, in the dark.