Not even 96Kb/s per channel? For our other readers who need a more common reference, you're complaining that it's not even 192Kb/s 2-channel(non-surround).
Most movies don't have any appreciable audio above 16KHz and even if they did most people don't have any appreciable hearing above 16KHz. With 320kbps you get only frequencies up to 16KHz I'm betting on the AC3.Ĥ48kbps is MINIMUM for AC3 5.1 (this means not even 96kbps per channel!), because only starting from that bitrate you get full bandwidth up to 20KHz, and that is equivalent to CD quality. It would be interesting to compare these soundtracks with 5.1 speakers and then figure which sounds best. The reason to use AC3 is for 5.1 channels or to preserve the original audio. The AC3 is CBR and otherwise hasn't been well milked for quality. They've been milking every bit of quality they can from MP3, including improved modeling, etc. what happened to the other 4 channels in your AC3 (considering you only have two speakers)? How were they combined on playback?Īlso, give LAME some credit. How were the channels combined for the MP3 (e.g. Was the MP3 volume cranked up and the dynamic range compressed? This might make the same audio sound better to you. Why did 128ABR MP3 sound better than 256Kb/s AC3? For starters, the AC3 had a cutoff of 12.?KHz while the MP3 probably cutoff at around 14.?KHz.īeyond that, consider how the audio was processed.
For most movies, 256Kb/s should be acceptable.
0 kommentar(er)
