janos wrote ::
I say average music consumer doesn't give a shit for sound quality.
they can't tell the difference between 96 & 192 k.
::
Actually, this is very true.
I had a long argument with all of my colleagues at work about this. I had
mp3's of some of my favourite albums on my machine at work, and some people
wanted to listen to them. I was laughed out of the office for encoding at
192k (and in many cases higher), because they all said there was no
difference between that and 96k. So we did a blind test of the same tracks
encoded at different bitrates. Whilst the difference was immediately obvious
to me (the tracks encoded at higher rates don't sounds like they're
constantly being dunked in the sea) and I identified them correctly within
seconds, nobody else could hear ANY difference whatsoever. And so the
conclusion was drawn that I was wrong, that there was no benefit at all in
sampling at higher bitrates and that I was some sort of freak.
But then that's what happens when you work with idiots.
Oh, and all this was before I discovered Ogg Vorbis anyway. Which is much
better (and smaller).
)Jame.s
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org