Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: So What Am I Looking For?
Re: So What Am I Looking For?
From: Glenn Ervin <GlennErvin_at_cableone.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:43:36 -0600
I don't think 160 sounds like a compact disk, I personally don't hear the
difference between 224 bit and 320.
But I usually rip at 192.
160 will do in some files.
128 bit is mostly disapointing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "????? ??????" <golergka_at_gmail.com>
To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>; <kales2_at_cox.net>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: So What Am I Looking For?
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:53:36 -0800
> From: "Sarah" <kales2_at_cox.net>
> Subject: Re: So What Am I Looking For?
> To: "Rockbox" <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> Message-ID: <005c01c730fa$ce8e7bb0$6401a8c0_at_youra9279112e3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> You can convert to mp3 160kbps wich is cd quality and sounds great!
> but I'm starting to stray a bit here so I'll keep quiet. lol. TC
160 kBit per second sounds like a Audio Compact Disc?
Oh my god I'm sure you better get new headphones...
Although I remember converting my Beatles CDs to 32kbps/22kHz in '98 &
trying to get the difference :)
Received on 2007-01-06