<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.
snip
<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.
Regards,
Grant Finlay
http://grantfinlay.podomatic.com
|