http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher...t_rates_pay_off
An item found on Digg
My reaction is that I know the difference between live sound and recorded sound, but this MP3 stuff isn't too bad for a recorded sound.
Full Version: Survey on listener perception about MP3 Sample Rate
I can tell a difference at 128 kbps and below. I don't think I've compressed at 160 kbps but I have used 192 kbps and with VBR it's difficult to differentiate between compressed and uncompressed.
Recording at a higer sample rate then dithering down will usually provide better results than recoding at 16 bit and compressing/dithering down to MP3.
QUOTE(tifftunes @ May 30, 2007, 10:18 pm) 
Recording at a higer sample rate then dithering down will usually provide better results than recoding at 16 bit and compressing/dithering down to MP3.
Dither down to mp3? Uh...no.
My inventory of gear doesn't really permit a fair comparison. My TC Electronic Konnekt 24 (CD or better quality computer interface with ADDA plus mic-pre) has less noise than my other Lavry PRS (personal recording studio) with MP3 and CD quality recording.
There's always an undercurrent of white noise with the Lavry unit but both seem to record at a reasonable quality. As long as you're not doing critical once in a lifetime recordings (of an opera singer or an Appalachian folk singer) the MP3 format ain't bad...but obviously master 'tapes' should be finer than distribution copies.
There's always an undercurrent of white noise with the Lavry unit but both seem to record at a reasonable quality. As long as you're not doing critical once in a lifetime recordings (of an opera singer or an Appalachian folk singer) the MP3 format ain't bad...but obviously master 'tapes' should be finer than distribution copies.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.