[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MP3 vs CD

Subject: Re: MP3 vs CD
From: "grant finlay" grantfinlay
Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:29 am ((PST))
<I've done double-blind listening tests. 192K MP3, with a good encoder
<(there are some dogs out there), is -very difficult- to distinguish
<from CD. That qualifies as good enough in my book, and I keep my
<personal entertainment and bird ID libraries in that format.
<Dan Dugan

I do all my editing in protools and find the mp3 converter that comes  
with it to be pretty damn good (fraunhofer codec). But then, for  
other recordings I have to do a higher bit rate then my standard  
192kb to retain quality. (water lapping for example, the high  
frequency transients turn "brittle" @ 192k) But I have to agree with  
Bernie, a lot of my recordings are 24b/48k and the mp3 versions just  
lacks something, a sense of space and depth is probably the best way  
to describe it.

Grant Finlay

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU