 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 242 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614154 Today 6 Topics 127544 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
At what point (i.e.) 96kb/s, 128kb/s, 196kb/s etc) do you fail to here those "squeeky" high frequency sounds? Most of my downloaded songs are at 128kb/s - do I lose a lot of sound this way? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah. i don't like anything lower than 192kb/sec, really. depends on your speakers; but on my system, you can definitely notice a difference. given, though, it all depends on the encoder too - i've got 128kb/sec mp3's that sound a whole lot better then some 192kb/sec or even 256kb/sec ones encoded with a crappy codec. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I use the latest version of Nero to burn 128kb/s mp3s to CD. I can't notice too much of a difference (if at all). I've only done this so far with µ-ziq Bluff Limbo and In Pine Effect....which have terrible sound quality anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yuor speakers are teh suxors if so! or perhaps teh ears :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ever given ogg a try? compared to lower bitrate mp3s its incredeble (at the same bitrate). its also free, and opensource (mp3 is neither). ill provide samples if anyone whos never heard it before is interested.... at higher bitrates (like 192 ) its obviously harder to see alot of improvement while using ogg, but it does sound much better |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
