ext_30558 ([identity profile] datenshi-blue.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sherryillk 2006-03-25 03:28 pm (UTC)

Is there really a noticeable change between 128 Kbps and 320 Kbps? I like 320 Kbps better because when you switch them to audio to burn a CD or something it has less quality loss, but when you're listening to the mp3, the difference in quality is so not noticeable for the human ear.

I mean, anything less than 128 Kbps does sound like shit. But 128 and upwards it's all the same for the human ear (unless you're using a super expensive hi-fi and the loudest volume possible so you can hear some noise in the background...)

Mmm, don't mind me. The "The only version I had of this was 128 kbps and it sucked so badly" just made me raise my eyebrows. No offense intended.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting