quote:

Originally posted by Tranzmit Actually waves are fine for playback. Even quicker then mp3's as they don't have to be decoded but finally the size of the storage is their problem

Well, that is where the problem lies. Since the storage used by an Mp3 is smaller, it is more likely to fit a larger number of mp3's into memory. And we all know that a 10ns access time for memory is a lot faster than 10ms on your HDD.. therefore skipping through and mp3 is easier and switching tracks as well.

CPU speed is not really a limit at this point.

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

quote:

Originally posted by afastest i posted this in poll section, but then i found this thread, so i should copy-paste it here: About mp3 quality: there is big difference bitween codecs, and the sound that you compress. Some codecs are that bad, that i can clearly hear bubling effect in music, and strange noise in silent places. I have one track from trance master 21 as i recall. Metal master - Odyssey of light Solid sleep mix. If you have wav, please try compress it to 128, 192 and 320. The first minute of the composition has something, what will make you hear the difference bitween wav and mp3, at least 192 an less. The echo after vocals, and beep, reverbiration aswell will have strange bubling effect, like boiling water or something. The best way to hear that bubling is to compress silent music with 24 kbits. But there is another way. Get Nullsoft dsp plugin for winamp. Choose voice remove effect. You will hear that in almost all mp3. Only 320 kbit with lame codec will have the less of it. But i still can hear that. In 128 it will awfull, just try it. That's why wav is the best it is cristally clear. it is fully digital. Mp3 is not fully digital. It does not have the wave in it. It only has frequences, with small discrepancy. They just try to make that discrepancy as small as possible, so human brains can't hear or recognize it. The other thing i dont get is why ppl always want more, but not more quality. Few years back, when ppl had 2-4 gb hdds, they were happy to have 200 mp3. Now hdd are at least 10 times bigger, but many still want 128 kbit mp3s, thousands of shit mp3s are better that 200 wavs.

I hear that sound in my Surround channels! I REALLY hear it when either:
1. The bitrate is below 256 kbps encoded with ANYTHING OTHER THAN LAME ENCODER or
2. ANYTHING encoded with the Xing encoder.
If you use the LAME encoder and u encode at 192+, this won't be present much but, that's why you have "bad" 320s but "great" 160s! My version of Armin - Communication is 320 kbps but, I think it was encoded with Fraunhoffer because I hear that annoying sound a little in my Surround channels and there are definitely frequencies above 16 khz (Xing cuts all 16 khz+ frequencies). So, that's how I know it was encoded with Fraunhoffer.

buddy, 192cbr is way better then vbr, for the reason that all you get with VBR is a LITTLE saved space but not to much

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 I hear that sound in my Surround channels! I REALLY hear it when either: 1. The bitrate is below 256 kbps encoded with ANYTHING OTHER THAN LAME ENCODER or 2. ANYTHING encoded with the Xing encoder. If you use the LAME encoder and u encode at 192+, this won't be present much but, that's why you have "bad" 320s but "great" 160s! My version of Armin - Communication is 320 kbps but, I think it was encoded with Fraunhoffer because I hear that annoying sound a little in my Surround channels and there are definitely frequencies above 16 khz (Xing cuts all 16 khz+ frequencies). So, that's how I know it was encoded with Fraunhoffer.

yes, i hear it with anything other than lame.
some old codecs (dont know what) are that bad, so they are aweful in 320. Some tracks (depends on sound and frequencies) are very good with lame at 192 kbits.

I dont really think people can tell the difference between 192 256 and 320, so most mp3 files nowadays are encoded mostly at 192.

As you listen to a track at different qualities of 96, 128, 192, and 256; the 256 and 192 have clearer, nicer and sharper high range sound.

My logic is: it takes a higher dBs of high pitched sounds to travel to a destination than low pitched sounds. Therefore, it must take more effort (or more space) for higher frequency sounds to be amplified, especially through mp3s. Whatever i know its not a good logic, but it works for me

Years ago 128 kbps was standard, now 192 is standard, i wonder if this is because people are getting better at telling the difference and noticing that 128 doesnt have enough highs. dunno...just my thoughts

So basically what you guys are saying is that you'd need ears of a canine and a $50,000 dollar stero system to begin to hear the difference of a 192kbps vs. a .Wav

___________________