Posted by NRen2k5 on 07/03/07 16:14

"�����������������������������������������������������" wrote:
> 320 is quite a considerable reduction in quality, even more if it is
> also done in Joint Stereo, which also reduces stereo separation as
> well. It can barely be called CD quality.

Wrong – Joint Stereo is better than Left-Right Stereo. Haven’t we had
this discussion before?

> 128 is so diabolically compressed that much of the detail of the
> track is lost, rather like listening to a cassette tape. Nothing
> resembling CD quality.

We agree on this point.

> BUT, it all depends on how you listen to it, if you use a sound card
> and computer speakers, you will not even be in a position to judge
> the difference.

All depends on the soundcard and speakers. There *are* some damned good
ones out there. For example, the M-Audio Midiman/Revolution line.

> To convert 320 files to 128, you need to convert back to a WAV file
> and then reconvert to 128, both processes lose quality and detail,
> imagine buying a CD, recording it to a cassette, then doing an
> analogue copy of that cassette before listening to it, that is
> basically what you will be doing.

The quality loss between 320kbps and PCM-WAV is negligible. In the case
of a good converter, it may actually be better than your software MP3
player at decoding MP3 to PCM.

Agreed on the point of re-encoding to 128kbps losing a lot of quality,
though.

> do not end up polluting the Internet.

Funny thing to read coming from someone propagating a myth (see above,
about Joint Stereo).

[Back to original message]