pasobize.blogg.se

1. #256 kbps vs 320 kbps 320kbps
2. #256 kbps vs 320 kbps movie
3. #256 kbps vs 320 kbps 320 kbps
4. #256 kbps vs 320 kbps full

#256 kbps vs 320 kbps movie

You know what, most non-audio professionals wouldn't be able to tell a 128Kb/s AC3 movie track from the original DVD in a blind test, let alone 192Kb/s and no original reference track on an A/B switch.īesides, I'm talking about one or two CD DVD rips where it's absurd signficantly degrade the quality of the video for an insignficant increase in audio quality. Not even 96Kb/s per channel? For our other readers who need a more common reference, you're complaining that it's not even 192Kb/s 2-channel(non-surround). The more efficient the codec at lower bitrates, the smaller the files. The difference between codecs is mostly demonstrated at lower bitrates, which, at their inception, was the target audience for audio codecs.

#256 kbps vs 320 kbps 320 kbps

Most movies don't have any appreciable audio above 16KHz and even if they did most people don't have any appreciable hearing above 16KHz. 320 kbps MP3 will probably be compatible with more devices and software than AAC, so that could be a benefit.

#256 kbps vs 320 kbps 320kbps

With 320kbps you get only frequencies up to 16KHz

#256 kbps vs 320 kbps full

I'm betting on the AC3.Ĥ48kbps is MINIMUM for AC3 5.1 (this means not even 96kbps per channel!), because only starting from that bitrate you get full bandwidth up to 20KHz, and that is equivalent to CD quality. It would be interesting to compare these soundtracks with 5.1 speakers and then figure which sounds best. The reason to use AC3 is for 5.1 channels or to preserve the original audio. The AC3 is CBR and otherwise hasn't been well milked for quality. They've been milking every bit of quality they can from MP3, including improved modeling, etc. what happened to the other 4 channels in your AC3 (considering you only have two speakers)? How were they combined on playback?Īlso, give LAME some credit. How were the channels combined for the MP3 (e.g. Was the MP3 volume cranked up and the dynamic range compressed? This might make the same audio sound better to you. Why did 128ABR MP3 sound better than 256Kb/s AC3? For starters, the AC3 had a cutoff of 12.?KHz while the MP3 probably cutoff at around 14.?KHz.īeyond that, consider how the audio was processed.

For most movies, 256Kb/s should be acceptable. The filter cuts at around 11 kHz and the spectrum is very “holey”.Īs a result of this, I have chosen to use 320 kbps MP3s for my collection.448Kb/s is overkill for AC3. Note the change of scaling on the y-axis. High frequency content is definitely lost.Ħ4 kbps MP3. The high-cut now occurs already at around 16 kHz. The audio is still cut at around 20 kHz, but more “holes” now appear at high frequencies.ġ28 kbps MP3. At high frequencies a bit of “holes” appear.Ģ56 kbps MP3. It is seen that a low-pass filter is applied to remove everything above 20 kHz. The spectrum is very tight-looking.ģ20 kbps MP3. The highest represented frequency is 24 kHz (i.e. The y-axis is frequency and the x-axis is time. (Ambient, Chillout, Trance) MDB - Beautiful Voices 001-061 - 2007-2016, MP3 (image+.cue), 256-320 kbps » Goa Trance, Psy-Trance, Ps圜hill, Ambient, Dub (Live Sets. the MP3 resolution from the standard 128 kbps up to at least 320 kbps. The following figures show a spectrograms for WAVE, 64 kbps, 128 kbps, 256 kbps, and 320 kbps, respectively. By contrast, MP3 files of 192 kbps, 256 kbps or greater preserve most of the. The WAVE is converted to MP3 using lame: lame -b XYZ song.wav song.mp3 where XYZ is 64, 128, 256, and 320, respectively.Īnalysis was performed by Sonic Visualiser. Music: “Sea of Sorrow” by Get Your Gun recorded at a sampling rate of 48 kHz. Here is shown the difference between a WAVE file and derived MP3 files of different bitrates.