|
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul Wilson
Certainally not true. There is practically no difference in quality between a 96 kps MP3 and anything up from that. If I ripped an MP3 from CD to 96 kps and then then I changed the 96 kps MP3 to 192 kps, I don't think anybody would be able to tell the difference. I don't see any point in people ripping MP3's to above 96 kps, anybody else feel the same way? |
Oh darn... not this discussion again...
First of all bro, you wouldn't notice any difference if you encoded your 96kbps MP3 into 192kbps MP3 because you lost so much CD quality ripping it into 96kbps in the first place that you just can't recover that no matter what bitrate you encoded that MP3 into later on.
However, if you took the WAV file and made two MP3s - one encoded at 96 and the other one at 192, you would notice a difference!
If you don't notice any difference between those 2, then you either have some crappy audio system or you're just plain deaf... I gave up on 128kbps and lower bitrate MP3s long time ago (ever since I heard the good quality 160 and 192kbps rips on my $800 audio system)!!!
If you need some facts on this, I will sure try to dig up some links from my bookmarks, since I really don't feel like starting that debate on encoding MP3s at anything lower than 128kbps...
And if 96 was good enough, why in the heck do all these MP3 release groups and rippers encode their releases at a minimum of 192kbps? Certainly not because they just have too much hard drive space and too much time on their hands...
...it's all about the quality...
___________________
Keep it real, and stay single, always mingle...
|