Quote:
Originally Posted by davexnet
Some people can't hear the difference between 128 and 320 kbps mp3. How is the "ear of the beholder"
taken into account? I know that when I converted some of my video to mpeg-2 DVD,
the audio (different types) was converted to ac3-2-channel. I found 256 kbps ac3 was at the point where this
kind of conversion sounded "transparent" - in contrast 224 kbps ac3 sounded a little "pinched".
But this is not music. It's a typical video, some voices, some environmental sounds, etc,etc.
I think what I'm trying to say is that when we listen to music we listen with a much more critical ear.
Especially when we convert them ourselves. Through my local library, they have a thing where you can download
5 free music tracks a week. I've downloaded some and so far I've seen 192 and 256 kbps mp3.
Not having a better source to immediately compare to, and the fact that they came from the library and were free,
gives me a psychological "freedom" to enjoy them as-is with out worrying about the sound quality.
|
Transparent has two meanings: One person can't tell a difference between two versions, or the majority of trained people can't. (HA is quite a bit more elite than the general population.) Presets are based on the second meaning, but you should base your decision on the first meaning. If you happen to have golden ears or prefer an EQ that breaks psychoaudio assumptions, then what's stopping you from using more bits, or an older version, or FLAC/not re-encoding? No one will judge you, in fact, no one cares. It's your collection, do what makes sense to you.