Would people please upload MP3 at 320 kbps...

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:11 pm

since it IS noticable in quality ... and if it isnt to you ... keep in mind that speaker systems only get better ... and so it will become noticable.

I know Im a fuss ass when it comes to quality. But seriously, I can tell the difference between 320 and 192 kbps. 192kbps 'irons out' all the beautiful imperfections which make a song so much more immersive. 128kbps more so.

So please, do your fellows a favor and encode 320 kbps. M Player 10 supports this for MP3 format.

Quality, not quantity.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:27 pm

Well I can see i'm alone on this one...

shame.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:29 pm

I don't hear any noticeable difference between 192 and 320...

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:04 pm

i do on some types of music, but with the amount of music i store on my computer it would be silly to only have lossless to 320kbps. Saying that though, 192 is the lowest i like to go.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:34 pm

FLAC!! Then you can convert it to whatever you like, but have a good as cd version to, well, burn to cd, or store on a dvd. Your ears will thank you for it. Laughing

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:29 pm

HBS wrote:

i do on some types of music, but with the amount of music i store on my computer it would be silly to only have lossless to 320kbps. Saying that though, 192 is the lowest i like to go.

True enough, It is not always noticable on some types of music (rap/DnB). However, I'd like to feel comfortable knowing that what I'm hearing is most definitely how the producer intended it to be heard. Such comfort requires 320 kbps rate.

It is most definitely noticable for artists like Muse/Moby etc (You know, the good ones Razz

). The ones that pay attention to every miniscule detail to produce a truely engaging experience (I use shure E4C's which are pretty sexay).

Majority rules I guess. I'd make the sacrifice of disk space any day for it is nothing in comparison to the space it takes to store movies and the likes.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:33 pm

MP3 at 320kbps minimum is what i look for. i rip CDs to WMA at 192kbps. WMA at 64kbps = MP3 at 128kbps.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:12 pm

Quote:

FLAC!! Then you can convert it to whatever you like, but have a good as cd version to, well, burn to cd, or store on a dvd. Your ears will thank you for it.

Definitely i have started downloading in .flac format lately and the quality is great. Smile

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:35 pm

Quote:

I use shure E4C's which are pretty sexay

Oh I dont know, you go out and buy a nice set of cans, then you go and use them for mp3. Thats like buying a ferrari and sticking a diesel engine in it.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:35 pm

If it aint flac its crap Wink

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:12 am

Quote:

Oh I dont know, you go out and buy a nice set of cans, then you go and use them for mp3. Thats like buying a ferrari and sticking a diesel engine in it.

Heh. Nice analogy ^^. I dont really have much of a choice in the matter. I cant afford to buy music at the moment. My university internet limits me to 10 gb a week! And I dont have the storage space for FLAC albums (~450mb/album).

When I get a nice cd reciever and amp and move out of current accomodation I will download in FLAC and maybe even buy a few albums. The point being, right now its not worth it. The only thing I listen to mostly is my mp3 player with shure E4C's. And that has 80 gb. Meaning (if it could play flac) it would only hold ~160 albums. And I dont have any nice speakers at the moment so using a PC/CD/Speaker setup would be futile.

I realise that I could just burn them and use a PC/CD/E4C's setup ... but thats just f**kin awkward and not worth the effort considering one has to sit within 1 metre of a machine and spend a good 40 minutes par disc preparing/burning.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:33 am

Just realised how incredible DBPowerAmp is for lossless audio rip. I'm a completely noob when it comes to sound.

OG, you seem to know what your talking about. Would a sound card be a limiting factor when it comes to quality? I currently plan to run my soon to be speaker set up from a laptop/amp/cd receiver. The sound card is the standard one you find in packard bell laptops (realtek something or other...). Im not too knowledgable on these things.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:31 pm

Spend $75 or so on a soundcard, your integrated sound is almost certainly junk, i spend $60 on a descent generic card, then through my kenwood reciever and tower speakers, get er rigged up and you'll swear off the mp3's as well Wink

Remember CD/flac still cannot compare to analog vinyl sound, so you might as well get as close as you can, and harddrives are cheap.

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:14 pm

iahag wrote:

Well I can see i'm alone on this one...

shame.

Not at all... I hear a clear difference between them. I have a good sound system, so that makes all the difference. Anyways, I've long passed mp3, it's flac only for me.
It's too weird: technology has always grown to become better and better and then all of a sudden some schmuck invents the mp3 format, downgrading any and all music ever made to some background noise without any clarity, dynamics or depth and everybody's happy with it...
Why the hell spend good money on a quality mp3 player if you're only going to play substandard conversions on it? Save your money, get a decent stereo system and play a decent quality CD. If you can't hear the difference, you shouldn't be listening anyway...
So yes, three cheers for the smart guys here, go flac or go deaf!

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:37 am

Between VBR (Variable Bit Rate) and CBR (Constant Bit Rate) mp3 files, I guess VBR is the obvious choice. VBR is much more rational, since it uses a high bit rate only when it's needed.