Fun Stuff > BAND

People prefer mp3s over other higer quality file formats study says.

<< < (3/6) > >>

MrBlu:
Well in my case, it depends on where the sound is coming from.

For instance on the crappy speakers on my Motorola Z3 RIZR, you can definitely hear the difference between the 320kb/s and the tracks of much lower quality (things people Bluetooth to me), but you can't really tell the difference between a 256 and a 128 track.

Now, If I'm in my second home (my best friend's place) with the 7.1 stereo speaker system all around the freakin' room, you REALLY do not want to be listening to a low quality track (let's say the "Down Below It's Chaos"- Kinski album in the Mediafire thread) on that.

I'm not much of the audiophile I'd like to be, but I do wish all my music were high quality tracks. If I could:
a) Donate a whole day to converting my music to a lossless format (e.g. FLAC)
b) Spend money on a good portable music player that plays FLAC files (and various other formats) and has a large capacity.
c) Spend some money on some good headphones,

I most certainly would.

Hat:
People who play FLAC files on an mp3 player are either the victims, or the perpetrators of a really sick joke.

Stupid Human:

--- Quote from: Ptommydski on 13 Mar 2009, 19:54 ---
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 13 Mar 2009, 15:21 ---Man I swear half the people who hark on about mp3 quality couldn't tell the difference between 192kbps and lossless if you switched the labels round. It's an elitism thing.

--- End quote ---

Personally everything above 160kpbs sounds the same to me.

--- End quote ---

I pretty much agree with this, I definitely prefer 192 to 128, but once you get above that I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

That and I think a lot of people are going to like mp3's over over formats just for the sheer utility of the format with the current media playing platforms.

yellowfoliage:
For a lot of music it really doesn't matter to me whether something is on mp3 or what the bitrate is because for the most part I listen to music on my ipod, but when I put almost anything on my stereo I can immediately tell the difference between mp3 (even at 192 kbps, though less so for 320) and a CD or a record. I've got pretty decent speakers and to me it sounds like the music doesn't lose much range with mp3 but is completely robbed of its depth, almost like you're listening to a thin, flat cross-section of a song. For some music even that doesn't make a difference (a lot of old punk rock records were recorded on really cheap equipment anyway and the vinyl sounds pretty much like a 128 kbps mp3, even with a pristine copy) but for music with complex and precise arrangements like, say, Philip Glass, mp3 pretty much kills the sound for me.

Shaolin:
I also can't tell the difference with anything above 190k, but then again, I'm not a real audiophile. ;)
Still, a good portion of my music collection (mostly the stuff I got way back) is encoded with 128 and I just don't have the nerve to somehow get that stuff in better quality.
Concerning FLAC: I know disk space is cheap nowadays, but I don't want to imagine the size of 90gb mp3 in FLAC. :p This is even worse for portable players.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page