|
|
Posted by name on 06/02/06 00:38
name 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
Since it seems people are either unable or unwilling to provide some
examples, I've downloaded some music myself and I have to say I can
hear the difference in quality fairly clearly between 128 kbps and 192
kbps in most tests. It seems 192 kbps sounds a little warmer or fuller.
But with the BBE feature on the iAudio mp3 player, it's possible to
make up for this to some extend and I guess it also depends on the
quality and nature of the original recordings whether the difference is
subtle or more pronounced. Perhaps I'll switch to 192 kbps as soon as 8
gb flash players become available at a reasonable price (somewhere
below 200 euro).
A 4 GB SD card is only 95 euro these days and prices for flash memory
still seem to be dropping rapidly, so I hope that won't take too long.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|