179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Josh Davison
To:
Date:
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:19:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
Re: [idm] Sound quality
Msg-Id:
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101261015490.19942-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
In-Reply-To:
<000701c087b1$20c338c0$3265b4ca@oemcomputer>
Mbox:
idm.0101.gz
i have been compressing everything i encode to 44 Khz and 192 Kbps and i find it to be nigh on indistinguishable from CD source material ... every once in a while there will be a sparkley high frequency noise that exhibits a bit of aliasing but wtf it's compressed to about 10% of the original size of the soundfile so how can you complain? vinyl sound quality is another story of course, but it's pretty inconvenient to operate a record player while i drive :) joshx -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, shipman wrote:
quoted 32 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 :) > > > 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 > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org