justin = {
main feed
,
music
= {
decanted youth
,
yes, exactly, yes!
,
not vampires
,
full archive
}
,
code
= {
cockos
,
reaper
,
wdl
,
ninjam
,
jsfx
,
more
}
,
askjf
,
pubkey
};
Ask Justin Frankel
No reasonable question unanswered since 2009!
Suggested topics: programming, music, sleep, coffee, etc.
Note: please do not ask questions about REAPER features, bugs or scheduling, use the
forums
instead.
Name:
Ask:
Human (enter yes):
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Question:
in one answer of yours, you said 192 kbps mp3 songs are good enough. how can you say that? don't you think higher bitrates like 256 kbps or 320 kbps are much better? in websites, people say that 128 kbps is radio quality and 192 kbps is just CD quality, not the highest quality. and anyone can distinguish between 192 kbps, 256 kbps and 320 kbps if they listen songs from a good high quality headphones or speakers. then why do you compromise in listening music when you yourself is a music maker?
Asked by Try a longer question (46.101.22.x) on April 18 2020, 9:03am
Reply on April 18 2020, 7:52pm:
It is rare that I can hear the difference between a well-encoded 192kbps mp3 and the source .wav file, provided the output of the mp3 is not heavily processed (run any mp3 through a compressor and you can make the differences incredibly obvious).
Comments:
Posted by Mespotine (2.247.250.x) on April 20 2020, 2:57am:
@Try a longer question As bad as "common" headphones are these days, you cannot hear a difference. Most people listen to music using bad equipment. Not everyone is audiophile. And loss of quality between 192 and higher is usually only hearable with the right music/postprocessing(as Justin mentioned). Overproduced/overmastered music(usually these day's pop) is normally prepared for mp3's limitations. I think music with a wide range in dynamics and details can be problematic but everything else usually isn't.
Posted by 2020 (2.25.95.x) on April 20 2020, 9:12pm:
agreed -192kbps is fine enough for portable speaker devices and low resolution monitoring etc- also it's less taxing on server bandwidth/storage spacing.. still,there is such a thing as generation loss- which can multiply with copies of copies-- so lossless is a lot better in that sense.High qaulity transferes are preferred by serious audiophiles,general public seem to care less.
Comment:
Your Name:
-- Site Owner's Name:
(for human-verification) Comment:
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Copyright 2024 Justin Frankel
.
|
RSS