[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: MP3 encoders
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: MP3 encoders
- From: "Timothy Morris" <timothy.morris@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:24:05 +0100
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>
> The original CDR sounds a little "watery", as if the MP3
encoding process
> removes some production artefacts, or studio noise.
>
> at 192Kbps, three is no perceptible difference on >any< system I
have
> encountered.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
Hmm, my system is far more transparent than the Sherwood - 4 grand's worth
of amplification, 2 grands worth of speakers plus a two box CD player which
comes in at a touch under 4. I will do a double blind test, and get someone
else to do the source switching. Maybe my hearing has become hyper
critical,
but I certainly find it easy to distinguish between mp3s at 160 and the
original source. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to get opinions on
the best encoder, so that I really could give mp3 a run for its money.
Tim.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|