320 kbps songs may pick up more noise, but they do sound better imo.Īlso know that I can tell the difference between the specified files on my computer as well as my mp3 player which has a higher quality sound output than most other players. I agree with the idea that high VBR's sound pretty much as good as 320 kbps mp3's, but any low/medium bitrate VBR just doesn't sound as good. Is there any way we can set up a test on this site? I swear I could tell between a high bitrate VBR version of a fairly complex song and a 320 kbps version of a fairly complex song as long as they were encoded the same. Sorry, I should have read the rules, I didn't know this forum was so incredibly serious. Just wanted to express my opinion and see how many other people use them, peace. I usually use 320 kbps mp3's, with the exception of fairly simple songs or exceptionally long songs, for which I use 256 kbps.
(do I have really good ear's? I'm wondering) I have to admit LAME mp3's can pick up a lot of detail at 256 and 192 kbps, but they still don't sound as good as 320 mp3's. I really don't agree with this, there is definitely an audible difference between 256 CBR or 256 VBR files and 320 files, to my ears anyway. I've also seen a lot of statements that 320 kbps is a pointless bitrate and something like 256 vbr is the highest thats worth using no matter what.
(however, I use them because my player doesn't support any compressed lossless format) I've looked at some other threads and a lot of people say that if you are going to use 320 kbps mp3's you might as well use a lossless codec, and I understand that. I'm just wondering if anyone else here uses 320 kbps mp3's at all? My Mp3 player supports mp3, aac, wma, and wav files and after doing a lot of listening to the different lossy formats and bitrates I decided to use 320 mp3's because to my ears they sound almost as good as CD quality, minus the frequency cut off. Hi, I'm kinda new to compressed audio encoding.
0 kommentar(er)
