quote:

Originally posted by barry_sheen There is certainly an audible difference between 96 and 192. If you listen to a song with hard, pounding bass, it is still quite noticeable between 128 and 192. Obviously, listening to the 128 version would sound ok, until you compare it with the higher quality version. Barry

That's absolutely true. I have an awesome audio system at home - you could even recognize audio cd burned from mp3 source files or it is one which I bought in the supermarket 128 was default standart because 112 sounds very bad and 160 takes much space and has almost no effect, the best solution is 192 - 1 min is 1.44 mb and 8:1 compression.

dam some wierd music ;P hrhrhr

___________________

- Global PsyTrance Forums -

How can any of us music lovers be satisfied with 96kbps? I am no longer *completely* satisfied with 192kbps anymore. Why do we use 192kbps CBR (constant bit rate) mp3s? We should be encoding using variable-bit-rate, so that we can save space while having high quality.

With Lame 3.90, and --r3mix setting, you get excellent quality while saving space due to VBR. This is what I now use when I have the original CD and want to convert the tracks to mp3.

Please check out r3mix.net, especially this page:
http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/quality.htm.

link is dead

Take off the full stop at the end...

Hmmm it seems to redirect you to the index page... so just click on "quality" on the left.

Last edited by Hyperdimension on Dec-06-2001 at 05:39