From: Jankov Max <golergka_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:55:34 +0300

> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:35:24 -0500
> From: Michael DiFebbo <medifebbo_at_rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: So What Am I Looking For?
> To: Rockbox <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> Message-ID: <459F978C.3050606_at_rcn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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.

I assume that we're talking about the latest codecs. I don't know what
most part of my mp3's were converted with, but now half of my player is
filled with '06 albums and I doubt that someone still uses old encoders.
Received on 2007-01-06