John Williamson wrote:
On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the
primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and
transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed
for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the
time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time,
if I remember correctly.
You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!...
http://forums.winamp.com/archive/ind.../t-229919.html
I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k!
I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of
distortion.
I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close
to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones.
I find that reasonably hard to believe.
So can a
number of people I've tried the experiment on.
This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
*where people get tells from how the experiment is carried out.
160kbps stands out like a
very sore thumb in this context.
It's certainly different.
--
Les Cargill