Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default 320 kbps MP3

Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.

--
Les Cargill
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 320 kbps MP3

On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.



If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ?


geoff
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 320 kbps MP3

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.


As I said, it depends entirely on the source material and the playback
equipment.

What is most weird is that sometimes poorer quality playback equipment
can exaggerate artifacts. If you have a frequency range boosted on
playback, stuff in that range that might have been masked by other
frequencies can become audible.

Perceptual encoding is only a good idea for final release over limited
bandwidth channels... it just plain does not work if any additional
processing is to be done.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default 320 kbps MP3

geoff wrote:
On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.



If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ?


geoff


Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
take.

I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?


--
Les Cargill
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 320 kbps MP3

On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.



If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing,
no ?


geoff


Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
take.

I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?




To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss !

geoff


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default 320 kbps MP3

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:37:25 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.



If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing,
no ?


geoff


Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
take.

I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?




To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss !


Okay. First, a dynamic boost, followed by equalization. I do the dynamic boost when I'm faced with a few peaks holding back amplitude. I wish I had the hearing of you experts, but you don't post a thing, so I can criticize your audio work, if any...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...tgethooked.mp3

Jack

geoff


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adobe Audition 1.5 allows WMA monoaural audio at 44.1 KHz sample-rate with a bit-rate of 20 kbps Radium[_4_] Audio Opinions 13 July 23rd 07 09:45 PM
Adobe Audition 1.5 allows WMA monoaural audio at 44.1 KHz sample-rate with a bit-rate of 20 kbps Radium[_4_] Tech 13 July 23rd 07 09:45 PM
Question to Arny Krueger: 128 kbps MP3 Vs. CD - Is The DifferenceAudible? Randy Yates Tech 180 February 21st 04 12:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"