Mp3

F

fdsa

Active member
320kbps is better than 256kbps is better than 128kbps right?

how come can't hear a difference when listening to it in winamp?
will I hear a difference if I use a 256kbps and a 128kbps song that is rendered exactly the same way? say listening to it with an ipod can I hear a difference? because 128 is half the size of 256, that means I can hold 2x as many songs in a MP3 player, so think I should render all my songs in 128kbps format, but not sure if I can hear it weaker/inferior on a regular mp3 player as compare to 256kbps. Can the difference be heard? I can't hear it, but audio pros here suggestions?
 
I'm no audio pro but I've dealt with this before. The compression differences aren't too noticeable until you play it at a theater with a bitchin' sound system, you'll start to hear the little artifacts (I don't know the real term for it, but compress your audio to the lowest kbps setting and you'll hear what I mean. It's like a ringing sound under water) it's weird. lol
 
Go lower if you want to easily compare. Do a song at 32, 64, and 128.

128 is usually an acceptable quality / file size compromise.
 
SoundFforge (I think) starts calling things Transparent CD Quality at 160 kbps.

Going higher than 128, you probably won't hear a difference on any sub-audiophile systems.

For most audio pieces. Maybe certain types of sounds/music will show up more artifacts than others, too.
 
Beats the heck outa me... But I'd assume "transparent" means you can't hear the difference between live and recorded.

Which is kinda silly, since most in "live" situations...the sound sucks, anyway. :grin:
 
I tested it out on soundforge 128 sound same as 256 but 320 192 160 sound bad, missing the high cymbal sounds, while the 128 and 256 sounds full. very strange. Also what VBR should it be set it? to make it sound best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top