Posted by Joel on 11/15/70 11:25

"ALBATOR" <spamfucker@fbi.com> wrote:

>> Just how "HI-FI" are your components, if you think that 192 Kbps is
>> "CD quality"?
>
>192 kbps isn't "CD quality" it's near to...
>just I can reconize 128 & 192 on my HI-FI component over 5000$ when I
>listen 128 kbps I can say "CRAP"

192 is better than 128, sure, but that's not the end of the story.

>So 128 kbps is enough good for pc speacker & lowcost HI-FI
>tell me, why 192 is scene standard ?

It isn't, anymore. VBR has become more prevalent. I suspect that 192
was chosen to keep the bit rate relatively low, while achieving decent
quality with CBR, but 160 could have just as easily been chosen, in
reality. Both are noticeably less close to CD quality than VBR,
though, at least to many people's ears.

--
Joel Crump

"Of course, it is ironic that a media company [Fox News Channel] that
should be seeking to protect the First Amendment is seeking to
undermine it by claiming a monopoly on the phrase 'fair and balanced.'"
- Judge Denny Chin, referring to Fox News accusing Al Franken of
trademark infringement.

[Back to original message]