euphoracle
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Posts
- 127
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
It also kind of depends on how the encoder is encoding it. I've heard 128 mp3s that sound terrible and others that, as you mentioned, are indistinguishable save some digital artefacts unique to the mp3 compression scheme. I've also heard 128 files that sound better than 192 files. Likewise, I've heard some tapes that sound better than their CD counterparts. There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium, for that matter. Truth be told, humans imagine sound. I've done it. We all do it. It isn't fair to compare bitrates when you will obviously be biased by larger numbers.
Originally Posted by AtomikPi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have ABX'ed in Foobar all the way from 128 CBR to 320 CBR vs. flac. Honestly, although I could successfully ABX them all (3/3 each - cymbal crashes in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" made this relatively simple) I honestly think even 128 CBR, except for a few minor digital artifacts sounds 95% as good as FLAC. The successively higher bit rates (128, V2, V0) each sounded slightly closer to flac but each sounded extremely similar to each other. I'm still planning on ripping to V0 to be safe, but I wouldn't say you're missing too much with even 128. |
It also kind of depends on how the encoder is encoding it. I've heard 128 mp3s that sound terrible and others that, as you mentioned, are indistinguishable save some digital artefacts unique to the mp3 compression scheme. I've also heard 128 files that sound better than 192 files. Likewise, I've heard some tapes that sound better than their CD counterparts. There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium, for that matter. Truth be told, humans imagine sound. I've done it. We all do it. It isn't fair to compare bitrates when you will obviously be biased by larger numbers.