320 kbps mp3 peaking at 22khz, difference? Options

[xdesirex22]

I have always used LAME to encode my 320 kbps MP3s, but I know there are other encoders out there that encode 320s that peak at 22khz. Does this make for an increase in quality or audible difference? I have always thought LAME to be the best option, but I have heard from different people that 320s that peak at 22khz sound better on a large party/concert sound system.

also, what are some of the other lossy encoders out there besides LAME?

[saratoga]

You cannot hear such high frequency so no it doesn't matter.

Also transparency isn't subjective and better equipment can make artifacts easier or harder to hear, not just easier like you're assuming.

This post has been edited by saratoga: Sep 10 2012, 04:47

[xdesirex22]

You cannot hear such high frequency so no it doesn't matter.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're wrong, just because its you who said it.

Also transparency isn't subjective

"Transparency, like sound quality, is subjective." source: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transparency

and better equipment can make artifacts easier or harder to hear, not just easier like you're assuming.

I never made this assumption. Feel free to reread my previous post until you fully understand it.

[greynol]

You cannot hear such high frequency so no it doesn't matter.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're wrong, just because its you who said it.

This behavior is unacceptable.