02-07-2007, 03:32 PM
why wouldn't you use MP3 Encoder at 192kbps?
1) For some people, the sound quality of the default 128 BR is adequate, and takes up less room than the 192BR.
Used only in a noisy environment and/or with moderate to low quality headphones, or by somebody who does not listen critically, 192 could be overkill.
2) For some people, the sound quality of lower bit-rates is not acceptable giving their hearing and listening environment, so 256 and 320 AAC, Apple Lossless, or AIFF make for more satisfactory choices.
A critical listener may also connect their iPod to a home audio system which can reveal flaws in the file type more readily than just using headphones. In such cases 192 won't be good enough (and *possibly* no compressed format may be good enough) for some.
Those are some of the reasons that different folks prefer different strokes.
1) For some people, the sound quality of the default 128 BR is adequate, and takes up less room than the 192BR.
Used only in a noisy environment and/or with moderate to low quality headphones, or by somebody who does not listen critically, 192 could be overkill.
2) For some people, the sound quality of lower bit-rates is not acceptable giving their hearing and listening environment, so 256 and 320 AAC, Apple Lossless, or AIFF make for more satisfactory choices.
A critical listener may also connect their iPod to a home audio system which can reveal flaws in the file type more readily than just using headphones. In such cases 192 won't be good enough (and *possibly* no compressed format may be good enough) for some.
Those are some of the reasons that different folks prefer different strokes.