Glenn Ervin wrote:
> 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.
> Glenn

128 what? 160 what? These discussions are meaningless
unless without reference to the codec and the encoder. If
you're talking about MP3 files encoded with a 1999 version
of the Xing encoder, you're probably right. Modern
encoders, however, are very, very good and can achieve
perceptual transparency for a majority of listeners at
surprisingly low bitrates, and certainly by 160kbps.

An MP3 encoded with the most recent version of LAME at
160kbps will be very difficult to distinguish from the CD
for most people. A LAME-encoded MP3 at the -V4 setting,
which is a variable bitrate setting that averages around
160kbps, will be impossible to distinguish from the CD for
the large majority of listeners.
Received on 2007-01-06