![]() But like Peregrine above, you may end up later re-ripping your collection to mp3 for a different music player. So, fine, if you want to absolutely maximize the number of songs at a slightly lower bitrate, go ahead and use ogg. ![]() Even now, very smart people are working to make your dinky computer speaker or your cell-phone speaker sound good through psychoacoustic illusions.īut now that you can throw a 16GB card into a Fuze and plug in a pair of quality headphones, an extra 1MB per song doesn’t mean that much. That’s why 128 kbps became the conventional bitrate: it was passable quality for putting a lot of songs on a low-capacity player. When players had less built-in memory or added storage, it was important to get the maximum sound quality out of every kilobyte. The programmers who designed ogg and mp3 made different choices about what can be discarded. And mp3 will play on a lot more devices.īoth ogg and mp3 take the music file, analyze it and decide what can be thrown out to make the file smaller with the least impact on sound quality. ![]() Maybe you can save a negligible 20 or 30 kbps–again, I haven’t tested. However, when you get into the 200+ kbps range, ogg and mp3 are probably going to be indistinguishable from each other. (I can’t vouch for this personally but will take their word for it.) Neither of them, however, will be at optimum sound quality. George-W, what people are saying here in geek-speak is that an ogg file around 128 kbps will sound better than an mp3 file at 128 kbps. wav file, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. Won’t save space compared to mp3, which was clear from the context of the original reply.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |