smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Kevin <oddsmusic@comcast.net> |
| Subject | Re: question about bitrates |
| Date | Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:20:06 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
simplist explanation is that the higher the bitrate,
the less compression and the less data that's "chopped off"
from the original .wav file, leaving you with something
more closely related to the actual sound.
personally, I only encode at 192kbps unless i'm
going to send the file to someone over email, then
i'd probably just do 64kbps.
I absolutely hear a different between 128 and 192, especially
in the higher registers of the music or when there is a lot
going on (multiple layers of sound). Can't hear too much
of a difference between 192 and 256 to justify the larger
file size vs. improved sound quality.
-kev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: audities-owner@smoe.org
> [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kosmicki
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: 'audities@smoe.org'
> Subject: question about bitrates
>
>
> I have been working a bit with mp3 files, and would like to
> know what the
> actual difference is between the different bitrates.
> Obviously there's going
> to be a difference between how much data in encoded, but what
> difference is
> there to the final product? I know some people have
> indicated that they
> don't like 128 kbps, but my untrained ears don't seem to hear much
> difference when I play them back. What else do I get besides
> a larger file
> if I go with 192 or 320 kbps?
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.