here's an mp3 quality test that will give you some idea of the differences apparent in even lower bitrate conversions using several popular methods, including mp3pro, ogg, wma and lame. as you will hear, your preferred encoding type may not be in agreement with the reviewer. the science of sound is ultimately more art than empirical, more subjective than objective, with numbers taking one only so far.
setting up a standard p2p q-meter may not be possible or even desirable, any more than having files marked as "good songs" and "really good songs" conveys practical, usable information. suffice it to say that more bits have more information but more bits take up more space and increase u/l-d/l time. do they also sound better? maybe. is more always better? probably not.
i listened to a pre-recorded cd of joni mitchells’ “hits” (‘96) during this post. it was remastered using a high definition method unavailable a decade ago and it simply takes your breath away
on some selections, under some circumstances, yet other songs on this meticulously crafted cd sound as they always have. that’s the way sound is; personal, indefinable, ephemeral, mystical. wonderful. and so impossible to cage.
- js.