• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Christopher Nolan certainly does not mix his movies for the cheap stuff…

    I think people get a little silly about it when you get above maybe 192kbps, but there 1000% is a huge difference between a 128kbps mp3 and a 192kbps mp3, and I would take a blind test every day of the week to prove it.

    128kbps mp3s sound like aural garbage. It’s like when you go to a wedding, and you can tell that the DJ just downloaded “Pachelbel’s Canon” from KaZaa because when played over the PA, it sounds like someone farting into a microphone.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Are we talking about movies or music? Movies are mixed to sound good in theatres and then they are later remixed to sound good on at least cheap surround systems, but, again, they aren’t generally doing it thinking about the people who spent $4000 on their system. And, again, the chief concern outside of the theater these days is audio for streaming.

      I am not denying that a $4000 home audio system will sound better than a $100 one just by virtue of at least some of the components not being cheap Chinese crap, but I doubt even Christopher Nolan is ensuring his Blu-ray releases (or whatever) sound best on expensive audiophile systems. There’s a point of diminishing returns here.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          What I am saying is there’s a point of diminishing returns. That point might be a 192kbps mp3, but there is still a point where 99% of people or more will not know the difference and there’s no money in marketing to that 1% who will.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours ago

            Yeah for sure… I would say even maybe 160kpbs for most music.

            But I’ve encountered people (and in the past, blog posts/news articles etc) about how the human ear can’t discern the difference between 128kbps mp3 and a lossless format, and that’s just absurd.

          • FryHyde@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I honestly agree with you quite a bit here. I would say the cutoff for what most people stop noticing is after 160kbps though. There’s a huge quality difference between 128 and 160, and 192’s a nice standard to preserve the subtleties without eating up space for no reason, but I don’t think most people can tell the difference after 160.