|
The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024
|
|
[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: MP3 or WMA
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: MP3 or WMA
- From: "Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:24:25 +0100
- Delivered-to: ukha_archive@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Malcolm-Smith [mailto:rich@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 14 April 2002 03:35
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] MP3 or WMA
>I find MP3 at between 96 and 128 indistinguishable from each other
-
>they are all awful.. 160 is ok for most stuff but 192 is better. I
have
>on a couple of tracks heard problems at 192 that went away at 256.
Richard,
I am curious, simply because your results differ so wildly from my own.
Some Questions:
Have you done this listening as a blind trial, with someone else
selecting
the tracks encoded at different bitrates for you?
What equipment are you listening on? I am wondering if you specifically
have
many A-D D-A stages along the signal path, or perhaps are going from
optical
to copper and back or some such.
I am also wondering what the MP3 playback device is, as I have noticed
considerable difference between (say) an MP3 Player in a Car to a good
PC
Sound Card
>I figure that HDD space is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper
and
>just do all the new stuff at 320. Its a shame that most of the stuff
you
>find online is at 128 and done in a shitty shitty encoder..
I maintain an MP3 archive, and whilst, yes, HDD Space is getting cheaper,
I
find anything above 160 becomes problematic. Our archive takes about
190Gb,
and is about 80% 128kbps. At 192 that rises to an earth shattering
270Gb.
As an aside, many of the worst (in quality rather than content) MP3 files
I
have ever encountered have been "looney tunes" bitrates, like
320, and sound
appalling on anything. a really good encoder like LAME at 160 will blow
away
a 320+ donkey-rip 110% of the time.
As always the advice is suck it and see, and if this works for you, then
it
works for you!! I would advise otehrs not to go down the same route if
they
can at all avoid it.
Ian.
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
|
For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe: ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe: ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner: ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|
|