sure, they're missing the same amount of data, but which data they're missing is what's really important. a good encoder will do a better job of deciding what to keep. i'm not saying that the encoder makes a HUGE difference, but it definitely is important.lil' jerk wrote:bitrate is bitrate.... take 160 kbps compressed with the worst codec and 160 kbps compressed with the best codec, there is the same amount of data missing.
WAV vs. MP3
-
- mnml moderator
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:30 pm
- Location: Est0n14
what?lil' jerk wrote:and its not even worth stating that low quality source files are a factor... otherwise we could all re-encode 128kbps files at 320 and be happy!
low quality source files ARE a factor.
Or you did say they are and I didn't get it?
we are all atomic and subatomic particles and we are all wireless...
are you serious???Robot Criminal wrote:what?lil' jerk wrote:and its not even worth stating that low quality source files are a factor... otherwise we could all re-encode 128kbps files at 320 and be happy!
low quality source files ARE a factor.
Or you did say they are and I didn't get it?
encoding something doesn't strengthen the quality of something that sounds terrible... if that were the case, all we'd have to id reencode bad quality mp3s.......
- theclockstrucktwelve
- mnml mmbr
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:20 pm
- Location: The sewers
brianc was right about some things..
IE a 192kbps MP3 encoded with one encoder will sound different than a 192kbps MP3 made with another. And in the case of a really terrible encoder, there is sometimes such a difference that a 192kbps encoded ona better encoder will sound better than a higher encoded mp3 on a poor encoder.
IE a 192kbps MP3 encoded with one encoder will sound different than a 192kbps MP3 made with another. And in the case of a really terrible encoder, there is sometimes such a difference that a 192kbps encoded ona better encoder will sound better than a higher encoded mp3 on a poor encoder.
"...Michaelangelo is a PARTY DUDE.. *PAARTEEEEEEE!* "
I like the guy who posted this. Very down to earth post. For most people sample rate is the difference. If there is major diff's in the bitrate/samplerate it will make a diff, but if it is mnml diff, most can't tell. Wave is better than mp3, and aiff is better than wave. but it really is a difference that only professionals can decipher on real audio systems. It is "touchy" on average/overly produced systems, because 95% can't tell the diff. Some records are recorded/pressed badly too, which can make a diff. trust your instincts. If it sounds great, then go with it, because some sh!t does sound better lofi.