Fun Stuff > BAND

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

<< < (4/6) > >>

MrBlu:

--- Quote from: MrBlu on 14 Mar 2009, 00:07 ---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 mediaf!re 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.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Hat on 14 Mar 2009, 01:05 ---People who play FLAC files on an mp3 player are either the victims, or the perpetrators of a really sick joke.

--- End quote ---

Guess.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16855228033
I want this.

Caspian:
Anything above 256kbps and I can't tell the difference between MP3, FLAC and .wav. No surprise Mp3s are popular, really; the difference in sound quality above a certain bitrate is rather small, they don't take up a lot of space, they work on basically every player.

KharBevNor:

--- Quote from: Ptommydski on 13 Mar 2009, 19:54 ---Personally everything above 160kpbs sounds the same to me.

--- End quote ---

Pretty much.

Hodges I am not surprised. This all reminds me of when I used to be big into online gaming, and a dude claimed superiority to me because his computer could play a certain game at 100 fps whilst mine managed a mere 40. The fact that the human eye is physically incapable of distinguishing between anything past about 25 fps did not seem to mean much to him.

A Shoggoth on the Roof:
I think in higher quality videos having a higher framerate does help, especially in video games, because they don't have the motion blur films do.

But he's still wrong, 100 fps is definitely excess, you're fine with 40, and the quality of the internet connection would be the issue. I know I got a lot better at CoD4 when we swapped our shitty wireless connection for a more steady wired one.

Shaolin:
"The human eye cannot perceive more than 25fps" is nonsense. ;-) Read up.
There is a huge difference between 25 and 60fps in a computer game. ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page