|
What is your fav. MP3 bitrate? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TimeportE |
| quote: | Originally posted by DVS
192 or above :) |
wurd!!
i used to listen to 128 only because i was on 56 back then, now i'm on adsl and i download only 192 and after a while you really can hear the difference!! my friends don't believe me when i say that 128 is crappy!!
i even got the prophet in 320!! i like to play that tune loud!! :D |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| If given a choice I will always download the higher bitrate; although 256k is close to ideal. |
|
|
| afastest |
i am very happy, i found two replies with wavs :).
me voted for 320 kbits, everything that i compress myself is 320 kbit with lame. Mp3s that i download are mostly 192, since is it most common bitrate nowadays. If i can find higher bitrate, i always choose it.
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 mp3s are better that 200 wavs. |
|
|
| a-aplz |
192!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D |
|
|
| webbie |
| 192, i like 320 when its avaible and its a really good tune tho. |
|
|
| sharpeye00 |
| i honestly don't hear a difference between 128 and 192 but just to be safe if for others i am throwin a party for and they want perfection i go with 160 when i get tracks. This is how i figure it. 128 might sound crappy to people with perfect ears. 160 is just fine for them, and 192 is fine for them but just takes up more space. so i usually go with 160, never 128. |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| 192kbps for me |
|
|
| Technaut |
| meh, i dnt care what the bit rate is as long as it sounds good |
|
|
| Linx_da_cat |
192 because it sounds great and isn't HUGE.
anything higher is just a waste imo. |
|
|
| afastest |
| quote: | Originally posted by Technaut
meh, i dnt care what the bit rate is as long as it sounds good |
what is huge?
on modern multi gigabytes hard drives 20 mb for an mp3 is still too much? on usual hdd you can have thousands of mp3s. several years ago you could have only hundreds. and cd-rs are cheaper than ever now, two disks for one euro/dollar.
i dont understand, but people always wanna it smaller and smaller.
quality doesnt mean anything. they want more. quantity. |
|
|
| Stanza |
192 ! Even though I'm on 56K
128 is the absolute minimum for me. |
|
|
|
|
