|
TRUE CD quality bitrate... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cable |
192 on a good encoder such as lame is quite close to cd quality
only way to hear the difference is to realllly blast a song...
and if you want quality why dont you stop being such a cheap ass and buy the vinyl/cd-single ? :D |
|
|
| flystyler |
192kbps is compressed, so it is close, and close enough for me. So you can use wav mate :)
But after seeing wav, 128, 192, 320 all compared 192 is very very close to cd quality. So who cares.
Unless i have a £6000 sound system i cant really tell the difference between cd quality and 192kbps
:) |
|
|
| Cable |
| yah, and most ppl here ear's are fooked from large sound systems at clubs :D |
|
|
| MaRt |
I always try and get 160kbps or 192kbps mp3s because 128kbps mp3s can often sound quite bassy or distorted. Anything above 192kbps is just wasting space though IMO.
To be honest the quality comes down more to the source - if the quality is pish in the first place, it will still be pish however high a bitrate you encode it with. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by quddha
But isn't hte whole point of mp3 is to reduce the filesize, by getting rid of those bits that you can't hear? and encoding the audio to be decoded during playback? kinda like a zip file? its smaller, but contains the same information minus a few parts that you can't hear anyway...
So, sure it doesn't have the same bitrate as an actual CD, but what you HEAR is what's important, and the fact that you cannot pick that the CD audio is actually "BETTER" than the mp3 file.
All this mathematics and whatnot are fine, but if you were to listen to, say a 320 kbps MP3 vs. the actual CD, could you pick out which one was BETTER sounding. Doubtful... |
I love MP3 because of the smaller filesize but, TOO MUCH compression results in artefacts... If I were to encode, I would use the lastest LAME encoder at 320 kbps. Even though www.r3mix.net says that 256 IS ENOUGH, you have to think about when you share the MP3 files through DC and other places. Chances are, that, when someone DLs an MP3 off you (espcially albums), they're going to burn it to a CD. What if they lend the CD to a friend, and he/she decides to compress it into MP3? Quality is lost, and when quality goes below 256 kbps, it IS AUDIBLE. 320 KBPS gives headroom for this loss so, the quality doesn't go below 256-quality in 1 decode-encode phase. Taht's why I would use 320 kbps when I get my big HDD and broadband connection! I'll be helping out TA, as well as others... I'll make a CD list of what I have and post it all here soon. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by thewarpbrothers
i hate maths...that is all :toothless |
Why? Most of my friends as well as I love it! The harder the funner, because there's more of a challenge to it and when you finally solve that hard problem taht took you a while to solve, you're proud. |
|
|
| Palivar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Why? Most of my friends as well as I love it! The harder the funner, because there's more of a challenge to it and when you finally solve that hard problem taht took you a while to solve, you're proud. |
very true, it's a nice feeling of accomplishment |
|
|
| Cable |
uhm, no offense but why is it my problem if someone wants to re-encode my cd, they can use 320kbps if they r so concerned about quality.
personally i use 320kbps all the time, but i download 192kbps files becos im on 56k and if i downloaded 320kpbs files i would download 2/3 less songs then i would now |
|
|
| TiestoInTheMix |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
Alls I have to say is that school is over so math!! I don't want to see another equation for the rest of the damn summer...hahahaha |
especially after completing an AP calculus class and preparing to take an extremely boring AP statistics class.
amen to that. |
|
|
| Palivar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cable
uhm, no offense but why is it my problem if someone wants to re-encode my cd, they can use 320kbps if they r so concerned about quality.
personally i use 320kbps all the time, but i download 192kbps files becos im on 56k and if i downloaded 320kpbs files i would download 2/3 less songs then i would now |
anyways I've heard that most people cannot notice the increase in sound quality beyond 192kbps...true audiophiles are the exception I think |
|
|
| keown1985 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cable
yah, and most ppl here ear's are fooked from large sound systems at clubs :D |
LOL, ahhh thats soo true, anytime i start to listen to Trance I usually end up putting it too high, and flippin wrekcing my ears!:(
128KB ---- for pop tracks and such other crap
192KB ---- TRANCE:) |
|
|
| Cable |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palivar
anyways I've heard that most people cannot notice the increase in sound quality beyond 192kbps...true audiophiles are the exception I think |
yes this is true, you need not only the ears but also the equipment to hear the difference between 192 and 256 kbps
its VERY hard to tell the difference between 256 and 320 kbps |
|
|
|
|
