It could be that or one track might be a bit longer than the other.

___________________
My Collection of CD's

Okay well, here is an example:

Both songs are 192kbps

One song is 3:19 and 4.55megs and the other is 3:20 and 4.59 megs. Don't extra seconds only consume about 2kilos?

I know this is really trivial, but I really want to know how it works.

If it's the same track and/or mix and both are 192kbps, i believe the differ is in the amount of silence in the beginning and end of them, other not necessarily being better in sound quality than the other. It might even be that the smaller file sounds better as you don't even know where from (i guess) and with what settings of the encoder it has been ripped at (besides the bitrate).. Best way to hear the differencies in sound quality is to listen to the tracks.

___________________
The walking discography.

quote:

Leslie Nielsen: Doing nothing is very hard to do... you never know when you're finished.

Well if it's as high a quality as 192, then you might see that kind of a difference as .04 MB for an extra second.

___________________
My Collection of CD's

It's the bitrate that partly determines the quality; the overall file size isn't that important. I say partly because the bitrate of the file doesn't tell the whole story -- the source has to be ripped and encoded properly before any bitrate issues come into play. This is especially important with vinyl. In short, don't worry about the differing file sizes, they mean little.

Both sound just as high in quality, but it seems kind of odd for one of the tracks to be a whole 4kb more than the other for just one second longer. Also, both start exactly just as soon, right at the start.

Maybe they re-encoded it

___________________
..:: Walking The Eternal Path Of Euphoria ::..

lol

BTW, Thanks guys for all the input! It's appreciated!

it's a virus!!

beh, just kidding, i don't know what i'm talking about.

HI MARGE!