audio quality and bitrate

prabhu.wali

prabhu.wali
So let's say I had a 128kbps mp3's from 2000, they should be obliterated by now right, as per that theory :D

So here's a mp3 that I had since 2001, and the waveform should be flat as per that theory, right!!!

*img210.imageshack.us/img210/8373/123iuy.th.jpg

*img833.imageshack.us/img833/4429/88964294.th.jpg

Jokes apart, I do agree that FLAC is better than mp3, but practically you can't find much difference unless you have a studio setup and rabbit ears.

Next time, try it before you copy paste blogs :)



*holy****ingshit40000.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-verdict-on-flac-vs-mp3.html

lol actually it was taken from headfi.org which is one of the more respected high end audio forums :)but from my experience the mp3 from 2007 sound way sh**y,i jus like be on the safer side who know in a couple of years i might own i high end setup and then it may matter:grin:

And it'd be better to compare the then audio with now
 

doomgiver

Warframe
if it does, its not due to any inherent degradation of the file, its due to the atrophy of the medium itself.

for example, the cd's with high bitrate tracks might get old, and the plastic might turn slightly opaque, reducing the quality of signals bouncing off the surface, etc.
 

warrior047

In the zone
have songs since 2003...at 128kbps...with low end speakers, then they sounded ok...now they sound lil crap with mid range speakers....but didnt see this lowering of bitrate folks...
 

AcceleratorX

Youngling
Just for the record: As long as the MP3 file itself remains uncorrupted, the audio quality will not deteriorate. The bit rate refers to the number of bits transmitted per second for a digitally transmitted signal. Since this is entirely handled by audio hardware, the HDD losses do not account here unless data has been corrupted on the HDD.

IMO 160kbps is the way to go for portable, low space, decent quality audio. Anything less loses out on a lot of the high frequencies.
 
Top Bottom