quoted 3 lines In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to> In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to
> tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded
> @128kbps or higher.
At 128kbps I would be hard pushed to find a track that didn't sound
different from source to mp3, I think those 'audiophile-type snobs' should
find another hobby... however I certainly agree that at 256 (and in many
cases 192) there is no discernable difference.
On a related side note, I have found Cipater (1st track chiastic slide, as
if anyone here doesn't know :) actually sounds better (in a way) in a poor
quality 128k encode. I mean, its just so oily and grindy to begin with, the
lofi nastiness seems to help it along :)
quoted 3 lines Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but> Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but
> at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the
> relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing.
The problem is, most people (particularly in the napster community) seem to
have no idea that there are different codecs, or for that matter, different
bitrates!
Of course, most people who download the files are in the same boat as the
encoders, which is where the myth of "mp3 sucks" comes from...
I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the
'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out there...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org