MOSFET wrote
Antispammer wrote
it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
normal
song would be 8-9mb

That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else finds
a
noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.

MOSFET

I also noticed a distinct lack of "depth"? when listening to MP3 (128)
compared to the original CD the songs were ripped from. I am in the process
of upgrading my ripped collection to 320. I cannot hear any difference with
the compression at 320. Space isn't an issue, hard drives are cheap these
days. At 320 the average disc will take approx. 170MB

Also ... just to nit-pick, it is not the sampling rate that we are
discussing here. That is still going to be 44kHz (I think that's the norm).
It's the compression that is the issue (as MZ was mentioning in his reply)
128 is a much HIGHER compression then 320 which is why the files are
smaller. Someone along the way told me that at high compression the range of
frequencies is cut off (something like 30Hz - 18,000 Hz) and similar
frequency patterns are simplified to conserve space. I am not an expert on
the encoding of MP3, so all I can do is throw this out for the wolves to
chew on. With lower compression (192, 256, 320) not as many corners need to
be cut ... hence the better replica.

Dan