The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024

Latest message you have seen: Re: [OT] Calling The Penguin People


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: MP3 or WMA


  • To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: MP3 or WMA
  • From: "Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:24:25 +0100
  • Delivered-to: ukha_archive@xxxxxxx
  • Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Malcolm-Smith [mailto:rich@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 14 April 2002 03:35
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ukha_d] MP3 or WMA

>I find MP3 at between 96 and 128 indistinguishable from each other -
>they are all awful.. 160 is ok for most stuff but 192 is better. I have
>on a couple of tracks heard problems at 192 that went away at 256.

Richard,
I am curious, simply because your results differ so wildly from my own.

Some Questions:
Have you done this listening as a blind trial, with someone else selecting
the tracks encoded at different bitrates for you?

What equipment are you listening on? I am wondering if you specifically have
many A-D D-A stages along the signal path, or perhaps are going from optical
to copper and back or some such.

I am also wondering what the MP3 playback device is, as I have noticed
considerable difference between (say) an MP3 Player in a Car to a good PC
Sound Card

>I figure that HDD space is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and
>just do all the new stuff at 320. Its a shame that most of the stuff you
>find online is at 128 and done in a shitty shitty encoder..

I maintain an MP3 archive, and whilst, yes, HDD Space is getting cheaper, I
find anything above 160 becomes problematic. Our archive takes about 190Gb,
and is about 80% 128kbps. At 192 that rises to an earth shattering 270Gb.

As an aside, many of the worst (in quality rather than content) MP3 files I
have ever encountered have been "looney tunes" bitrates, like 320, and sound
appalling on anything. a really good encoder like LAME at 160 will blow away
a 320+ donkey-rip 110% of the time.

As always the advice is suck it and see, and if this works for you, then it
works for you!! I would advise otehrs not to go down the same route if they
can at all avoid it.

Ian.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

  • Follow-Ups:
Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.