Timeline for Are there any perceptible differences between the sound quality of 192 versus 320 kbps MP3 files?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 22, 2018 at 19:35 | comment | added | user11643 | I've been in audio and video production for 15 years, and I can say that unequivocally the benefits of VBR over CBR are vast. I mostly do speech, which I find people can't tell a quality difference anything over 90kbps. I typically produce at 64, never had a complaint. | |
| Jul 22, 2018 at 1:11 | history | edited | Robusto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Additional info
|
| Apr 8, 2015 at 13:44 | comment | added | nico | @ChristopherGalpin that editorial by Robert Harley is ridicolous. He says that blind testing is useless because it doesn't give the results he thinks are right... Blinding is essential in testing something like that, it has been shown over and over again. To me that only reads like a childish rant. | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | ithisa | However, I do seem to notice a noticeable difference with LAME-encoded CBR MP3s, mostly from high-frequency attenuation (I'm only 15 so I have better high-frequency hearing). I agree though that VBR ones are pretty indistinguishable. | |
| May 17, 2011 at 7:33 | comment | added | user2466 | @Oddthinking - Good point. | |
| May 17, 2011 at 2:42 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @Christopher Galpin: Sounds like a good separate question. | |
| May 16, 2011 at 1:41 | comment | added | user2466 | @Christopher - Nice link. When he says "... blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon" he's making a huge call. It's tantamount to saying placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials 'fundamentally distort' the drug taking process in my view. Would be nice to find a rejoinder to this. | |
| May 15, 2011 at 23:15 | comment | added | Christopher Galpin | Robert Harley claims blind listening tests are flawed, not saying I agree or disagree whatsoever but I was hoping someone would have written a specific response somewhere. | |
| May 15, 2011 at 19:49 | comment | added | user2466 | Interestingly, @Ian C. over at audio.stackexchange also mentioned the Maximum PC article and says it gets mentioned quite a lot on the net. | |
| May 15, 2011 at 13:44 | comment | added | Robusto | @Sklivvz: Are you asking me if I consider it reputable or if I have a second citation giving someone else's opinion that it is? And will I require a citation for that citatation as well, ad infinitum? Look, it is a citation. After reading their testing methodology, I personally find no fault with it. But you may decide that question for yourself by reading the article I cited. | |
| May 15, 2011 at 13:40 | history | edited | Robusto | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2011 at 13:39 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Is the site reputable? Please use reputable sources. I can find sources like that which say exactly the opposite :-) | |
| May 15, 2011 at 13:34 | history | answered | Robusto | CC BY-SA 3.0 |