RE: Sunday HA Session

["Kenneth Watt" <kennwatt@xxxxxxx>]

Well said and, IMO, very accurate as well. I found that the best
results
for the space vs. quality argument was 128Kbs without question, if the
encoder is decent enough I think that the difference is negligible and
certainly not worth the space premium.

As a general rule I use MP3 for background material, if I like the
music
enough and want the quality then I'll buy, or have already bought, the
CD which I have done on many an occasion as a result of listening to an
MP3 album.

K.

> >I prefer the sound of 192k WMA's personally.  Most ppl of
course go
for
> >256k MP3's.
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> No, most ppl don't. The quality perception between 128 and 192 is
> considerable.
> from 192, encoded well (ie using LAME, VBR with the reference
settings),
> to
> *any* size,
> all you are doing is
> 
> a) kidding yourself
> b) wasting diskspace
> 
> I have personally listened to more Mp3s in the last three months
for
> quality
> checking
> than anyone else alive (probably not an exageration), and really,
the
> encode
> makes
> more of a difference than the bitrate, *every* time.
> 
> I have heard some truly *crap* Mp3s encoded at 320kbps, and some
128kbps
> that are so
> damn close to WAV that it's nearly impossible to tell.
> 
> Now, if you excuse me, I'll crawl back under me rock :)
> 
> 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.