[Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)]

One of the big problems you see are many cycles of conversion, and this
then adds some awful artefacts such as a gritiness or a modulation in out
tones and the swizzle effect in stereo where the phase is mangled in a
similar way to what happens to treble on a stretched cassette tape as it
snakes across the head. Another issue is just dull and uninteresting audio.
Its fine for non critical stuff, but I'd not want it to be used in a very
dynamic situation.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2020 10:48 am, lid wrote:
This message follows on from a previous message to this forum. I need
confirmation that I have used the right parameters saving to MP3, and
that the audio quality of the MP3 file is as good as that of the WAV
file.

An MP3 can *never* have as good quality as its source WAV file.

That said 192kHz can be pretty much 'as good' for most people on average
playback systems.

Surely you are still over-thinking this. S

(1) I have used the parameters for the source WAV file when creating
the MP3 file. Is this a sensible approach? Audio quality is top
priority.

Yes.


(2) Please tell me if the audio in the MP3 file is as clear as with
the WAV. I think it is, but I would like to be re-assured.

Probably not quite the same, but nothing glaringly different. Most people
wouldn't know or care.

The words on the recording are, "people like that should be .... I
know, they should be homeless".

Thank you for responses.


Given the quality of the source material, does it matter ? Or is the
objective to enable people to have the best shot at picking out the words.

Also if the WAV is 83KB and the resultant MP3 93KB, what is the point of
making it an MP3 in the first place - player compatibility maybe ?

geoff