http://mp3ornot.com/
Printable View
I hear it....
both are mp3.
the point is to identify which one is the better quality, you retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Isnt calling the site mp3ornot.com stupid is when the answer to the question isnt whether the file is an mp3 or not?
The whole mp3 sound quailty debate doesnt revolving around 192 mp3s vs 320 mp3s. Its CD, Vinyl, Wav whatever vs mp3.
Engage your own brain retard.
fairly audible differance thru the mackies
There is a massive difference. I was expecting WAV vs high quality MP3 or something.
Not much of challenge if its 320 vs 128 now is it?.
320 vs 128 .... piece of piss
comeon barry ...we all know u listened, failed, then clicked the only other option
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
Why doesnt someone do a WAV vs 320k vs FLAC version. ie a real challenge?
The Wav would be probably to big to play/download I guess.
just a small clip. worth a go i reckon. the page would load all the clips up first obviously so you wouldnt know which one took longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Dust
nonsense
I think you're all missing the point. This song is used to scare badgers, but seeing as badgers can only hear at a bit rate of 128 number 2 is teh gay.
Oh yeah, you're ma's.
Fairly audible difference with my shitty £5 headphones through this on-board sound card.Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
Erm...Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
What's the point of doing WAV v's FLAC?
FLAC is lossless, so there is no difference between WAV and FLAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechMouse
Erm. I said WAV vs 320 vs FLAC.
Which meant high quality mp3 vs the best formats.
And TM seeing you are being so pedantic today there is a massive difference
between WAV and FLAC. The size. ;)
Yeah, but you can't really hear size can you.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Not quite sure how your blind comparison would work.
You can yeah. I hear Rhythm tech has a tiny penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechMouse