Print

Print


To my ears, something with a lot of loud high treble information benefits from 320kbps. It seems to 
make fewer digi-swishies. For classical music, 320kbps can sometimes preserve more "room tone" or 
"air and space". This kind of low-level information is first priority to discard under lossy 
encoding schemes, so the more aggressive the lossiness, the more of this information is discarded.

By the way, 320kbps is near the resolution level of DTS or Dolby AC3 movie soundtracks on most DVD 
discs. So it's not _that_ crappy sounding, at least to my ears. For instance, way better than Dolby 
B mass-duped cassette tapes, much better than warped/paper-thin/shabbily mastered LPs from record 
clubs in the 80s. Strictly one man's opinions.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart Gooderman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 6:05 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] 256 vs 320 mp3 rate


> This question is coming from a relatively naive person:
>
> Will there be a significant sonic improvement when digitizing an analog recording at 320kbps 
> compared to 256 kpbs?
>
> DrG
>
>