I have this mix at 160kbps. For some reason I wanted to get a better encode and I found it. I'm just not sure if it is really better.
2 days ago I got an album at 320kbps and it was exactly like the one I had at 128kbps. Some wise guy must have simply re encoded it from 128 to 320...
I need you to tell me if the 192 sample is really better or not.

Rapidshare has no waiting time for files under 500KB.

160kbps http://rapidshare.com/files/22671129/sample160.mp3
192kbps http://rapidshare.com/files/22671348/sample192.mp3

Thank you.

Try an ABX test yourself with Foobar2000. If you can't tell the difference keep the smaller file.

Rapidshare and myself don't get along so I can't help you with the test.

I didn't ABX a difference.

But if you like this music you should really buy the CD and support the artist.

Ok this is all I could find...



Used the programs from this thread.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&...swPIfM8vniKM93g

So is the 192kbps better or not. :/

From the "guess" part of those screenshots, i'd take the 192kbps. Other than that, the only way to choose would be ABX, as already been suggested.

Thanks guys.
Problem solved... sort off...
After concluding the 192kbps album was better by looking at winamp's spectrum analyzer I had the strange idea to uninstall dc++...
Thus the entire album is now gone and it seems that the files can't be undeleted...
One night of downloading wasted...
I can go kill myself now. Good bye.

LOL

Yeah.. it got to me... I wanted to much perfection.
I realized 160kbps is actually pretty decent quality. Plus if you want perfection just go buy the album and encode to flac...

After I accidentally deleted it I went searching for the mix again...
I actually found some 256kbps encodes... but guess what... same thing. Same peaks, length, sound, frames.
I wonder why people do such things... (re encode at higher bitrates from low bitrate sources)
Oh and the download speed was 2KB... it would have taken me perhaps a day or more. Good thing I waked up.