TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I keep converting mp3 files... 192kbps--->128kbps
I keep converting mp3 files... 192kbps--->128kbps
I was just wondering if I'm the only one here in the habit of converting his every single Trance mp3 file from 192 to 128...
I don't know why but I just can't stand those mp3's in 192 kbps over 10MB. But it saves soo much harddrive space...
I'm sure most of u guys save your mp3s as they are since every mp3 I d/l from the hub is in 192kbps. 
well i prefer to hav quality mp3s that are a couple MB larger than having gash quality 128kbps mp3s to save a little space.
alert!!! 
alert!! mp3 over 10mb on HD!!!!
what the hell do u do with a liveset?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike well i prefer to hav quality mp3s that are a couple MB larger than having gash quality 128kbps mp3s to save a little space. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Technaut alert!!! alert!! mp3 over 10mb on HD!!!! what the hell do u do with a liveset? |
128kbps is shit quality. sounds nasty to me. 192kbps is near cd quality. i always try to get good sound quality so what i'm listening to sounds nice.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Werewolf the difference between them is not much, IMO. Sometimes, I cant even tell the difference. I know, some ppl keep saying that they can even tell the difference between 128 and 160. but my opinion: bullshit |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike well no offense, but its not really a matter of opinion its a matter of fact. Unless ur using some very low in power speakers, or there is something wrong with ur hearing, there is no chance that u cant distinguise the quality between a 128 mp3 and a 192. |
Well, I'll download 128 or 160 kbps tunes if there's no better quality available (this happens all the time with old tracks since the standard mp3 bitrate changes) but I'd certainly rather have 192 kbps or better. The quality is certainly noticeable although it depends heavily on your ears (obviously) as well as your speaker setup. If you're listening on standard $10 speakers that came with the PC then you may as well save disk space (although disk space is cheap nowadays so even that's not a great argument) but if you've got a decent system then you'll notice the difference. Try playing a 128 kbps file really loud. The highs seem to be the first to go as they take on an ear-piercing quality at loud volumes. Not a pleasant experience.
sounds like someone needs a better soundcard/speakers. the difference is HUGE!!
the only 128 songs i have are pop shit songs and old stuff i cant find in 192...
oh and converting up doesnt do anything...if there is any change its a LOSS in quality|
I've never said that there is no difference at all.. I was saying that it wasn't that much. Maybe as some of u guys said, it's 'coz of my sound system, which is not very good...
edit: btw, I just have my laptop with total of 60GB harddrive. so, harddrive space may be a problem in the future...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Werewolf I've never said that there is no difference at all.. I was saying that it wasn't that much. Maybe as some of u guys said, it's 'coz of my sound system, which is not very good... edit: btw, I just have my laptop with total of 60GB harddrive. so, harddrive space may be a problem in the future... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike perhaps u shud invest in a cd writer. Backup the tunes u dont listen to anymore, but dont particualrly want to permatently delete, and u can save literally gigabytes of space |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by biznology sounds like someone needs a better soundcard/speakers. the difference is HUGE!! the only 128 songs i have are pop shit songs and old stuff i cant find in 192... oh and converting up doesnt do anything...if there is any change its a LOSS in quality| |
The only time I convert from 192 to 128 is when I'm adding new songs to my MP3 player. I have a 64 MB player and to make more space and fit more tunes I convert them...I can get quite a few more songs on it that way.
looks like all u guys are 192 lovers... ( except me )
This is an old re-hash arguement for sure, but for the record, I can't stand 128 bit recordings.
They're hard on my ears, especially at higher volumes.
I agree, the highs do get nasty and there's no bass punch.
To me, there's a world of difference between 128 and 192.
After listening to tOOns for a while, I don't even have to look at my player, I can tell if it's 128 or not just from the highs alone.
I'm not saying I'm special, just sayin' that I can tell.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Werewolf looks like all u guys are 192 lovers... ( except me ) |
4 times a year I convert all the good mp3s 192kbps in my collection at that moment to mp3pro 96 kbps for me, my friends and my mp3player. This way I can store a whole lot of tracks on one cd.
me don't mind burns every month 2 or 3 mp3 cd's, don't mind how much the cd-r cost 0.50� so what? 192 or 128 or 256? me don't mind
after all my years of mp3 leeching, i have found no better compression for music than hi-bitrate MP3. 192 kbit, lame hi-quality VBR, 256 kbit+... i always strive to get those bitrates.
All of the newer formats that gives a better sound at a lower bitrate than mp3 of the same bitrate (i.e. an ogg vorbis/mp3"pro" at 92 kbit certainly *does* sound better than regular mp3 at 92kbit) simply do not appeal to me - as a regular 192kbit+/VBR mp3 generally has superior sound to those anyways! With hard drives getting the size they are, & optical media on the cheap... i dont know why ppl still complain about space.
i'll give exception to solid state mp3 players (i.e. 64 mb rios) tho, which are heavily priced for the miniscule amount of music they hold.
If saving space is an issue, then convert your files to ogg. You can cut the filesize in half and there is much less quality loss then there is when converting to 128.
This is nothing more than vandalism!!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter This is nothing more than vandalism!!! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.