|
|
Posted by Jim Higgins on 05/31/06 15:49
On 30 May 2006 19:15:44 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi.
>Since a long time I've been collecting mp3s (classical, rock, pop,
>modern, jazz, blues, reggae, etc..) on p2p. I've always re-encoded
>everything I collected to 128 kbps, since this is said to be near-CD
>quality by many people. Often however, I encounter people who insist on
>192 kbps or even lossless formats. Is there any proponent of 192 kpbs
>quality who is able to illustrate the advantage of this difference in
>quality by means of a few mp3s (or fragments of them) where this
>difference can be heared most clearly? I've heard that for piano music
>for instance it's very hard to distinguish between 128 kbps and 192
>kbps and I've tried this out for myself with piano music I'm fairly
>familiar with and couldn't pick out the higher quality in a blind test.
>So I'm interested in some music to put on my mp3 player (iaudio 5) to
>listen to with decent headphones (shure e3c) to see if it's really
>worth the extra diskspace to collect music at 192 kbps rather than 128
>kbps.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help with this request, kind regards, Niek
If 128 sounds good to you, stick with it. I don't understand why you
would re-encode files you get at different rates since that's bound to
introduce some degradation, but if you're happy, you don't need my
support or criticism.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|