Subject:MP3 Quality

Posted by: TomG

Date:12/15/2002 11:16:25 AM

Is there any difference (quality-wise) when you normalize an MP3 file originally saved at 64kps and then save it to 160kps? I know you save a bunch of disk space but I'm not sure if I can hear the difference.....

Subject:RE: MP3 Quality

Reply by: Jessariah

Date:12/15/2002 12:44:36 PM

A 64kbps compression is just that - compressed. The quality you lose can't be "undone." The only way to get a higher quality 160kbps MP3 is to convert your original sound file. Otherwise you just have a larger version of the 64kbps quality.

Subject:RE: MP3 Quality

Reply by: TomG

Date:12/15/2002 2:49:38 PM

Thanks Jessariah,

One last question, from a listening standpoint of the compressed media, is there a hugh difference in the quaility if I save the original (uncompressed) media in a 64,128,160,192 kps format?

Subject:RE: MP3 Quality

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:12/15/2002 4:06:21 PM

Tom, probably the best thing to do is try saving your original files with several different compression settings and then listening to them to compare. I found that i couldn't hear any difference between 160Kbps and uncompressed, but going to 128Kbps i started to hear a few differences. Normally i use 160Kbps for music, but if i want to archive speech then 32Kbps is often good enough.

Subject:RE: MP3 Quality

Reply by: TomG

Date:12/15/2002 4:27:30 PM

Thanks, Kelly

I will try what you suggest. I do like to have the ability to compress media and then shove it into an MP3 player. You can really get a ton of songs on those things nowadays. I think I prefer 160kps but you can get 25% more at 128.

TomG

Subject:RE: MP3 Quality

Reply by: MyST

Date:12/15/2002 7:50:12 PM

I think 128 for a portable mp3 player is fine. You'll notice the loss between 160 and 128 more on a home stereo.

M