View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 26-11-2017, 21:19 PM

Ffabbia's Avatar

Ffabbia Ffabbia is offline
*** VIP ***
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 5,600
Rep Power: 189
Ffabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud ofFfabbia has much to be proud of
Default

It always used to be 196 for optimum quality vs filesize

128 is OK, but you'll lose some tonal quality with that much compression, and some of the high mids and bottom ends won't sound quite so bright and punchy.

Having said that I don't think there's any restriction now on the kind of MP3 you upload - though, to my mind, going higher than 196 isn't going to make a huge difference, unless the equipment you use to record and produce with is absolutely state-of-the-art pro studio gear, capable of getting the absolute best from lossless audio. Audiophiles claim to hear huge differences between 196 kbps MP3 and 320 MP3, but they much have special ears - 'cos the differences sound marginal to me.

The kind of MP3 codec you use also makes a difference, Lame is still my personal favourite, and is superior (in my opinion) to Fraunhofer.

I don't know exactly what the MP3Unsigned flash-based audio player does. I've no idea of it actually reformats the audio.

All I know is that my own songs sound very different when uploaded to how they sound in their original wav, or MP3 format. The MP3Unsigned player seems to remove a lot of the bottom end, and cranks up the mids, so that the song sound generally a lot more 'tinny' and a bit flatter then the version sitting on my PC.

But whether this is due to reformatting, or some other reason is unknown. Perhaps others have the answer?
__________________
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY

Reply With Quote