Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [OFF-TOPIC] From: NooB: About FLAC kpbs (Read 1160 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: NooB: About FLAC kpbs

Quote from: Neuron on
It is funny how back when all mp3 encoders were shit and produced warbly, pre-echo filled files even at 320 kbps everybody was happy with 128 kbps yet nowadays everyone wants MORE KBPS even through modern mp3 encoders produce better quality at 128 kbps than the old ones at 320 kbps.


Well back in those days, all your friends were envious if you had a 6GB hard drive... so the number of files you could store at 128 vs 320 when 320 had audible artifacts anyway made 128 a good choice. First album I ever ripped was U2 War - and I used 96kbps because of space - and it took forever. I wish I still had those files just to see what they sound like now.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: NooB: About FLAC kpbs

Reply #1 –
That is true, but with non-FhG encoders at that time, 128 kbps would have incredible artifacts, I have Blade and Plugger here and they produce a sound that is simply unacceptable at 128 kbps. At 320 kbps, the results are still instantly recognizable, but listenable and "hi-fi" at least. LAME today is near-transparent at 128 kbps and would be overkill at 320 kbps while Blade is unacceptable at 128 kbps (in fact I found it worse on many samples than 128 kbps mp2 encoded by SCMPX which is based on the same reference code) and "good enough" at 256-320 kbps.