|
|
Posted by Jack on 12/04/07 04:52
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4752C3AE.FB053CE5@hotmail.com:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
>> closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
>> significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case with
>> those formats at 128 kbps.
>
> Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
> time.
You people have the whole world figured out, don't you?!
WMA 128k sounds quite good on my car stereo and it's not a cheap one. As I
explained before, I am planning for 5,000+ songs (16gb flash) and trying to
conserve space. I also have other tracks in mixed formats at higher
bitrates. You have to dive in and encode at some point. You can't keep
waiting for the next thing to get cheaper. In hindsight I would have chosen
WMA VBR "Quality 75" which keeps the files relatively small and cured the
Neil Young glitch.
I had no real issues with WMA 128k until this one track. Try one of Freddy
Krueger's ABX tests before sneering at it so casually. MP3 at 128k is
borderline mediocre because it's an older format - not as densely packed.
Online stores like buymusic.com were/are selling songs at WMA 128k, so it's
hardly junk. I would describe it as 90% to 97% of CD quality, depending on
speaker/headphone resolution. Music stores have upped the WMA bitrate to
256 kbps in many cases but it's not a quantum improvement.
Jack
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|