|
|
Posted by name on 05/31/06 16:19
Jim Higgins wrote:
> 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.
I think the degradation is rather subtle (I'm talking about the effects
of re-encoding here, not the difference in bitrate between 192 kbps vs
128 kbps), and I prefer 128 kbps so far since that way more music (16
hours) fits on my portable flashplayer without the need to re-encode
music everytime I want to refill it. However, in the future
flashplayers with much higher capacity are likely to become available
so at that point spaceconstraints might be less of an argument to
re-encode music to lower bitrates.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|