320kbps debate fact or fiction?

[Quality]

hi, i am obsessed with quality, 320 mp3 is all i do as common sense tells me the bigger the bitrate the better the quality -- but is this really the case does 320 guarantee quality. i wonder why there are so many 128, 192 shared, why do people settle for poorer quality.

some guy was telling me that 192 can be better than 320 it all depends on the user who made the files, his experience and tools used --- true?

Basically can someone explain to me through the forum how it works, re-assure me all my hard work is paying off that i am getting quality at the end of the day.

thankyou.

[Canada Joe]

Look around - there are plenty of posts on the subject of bitrates in this forum.. if it's just reassurance you need ask yer mommy

[Vladd44]

there are more important factors than biitrate.

what it is encoded with is as vital.

I prefer Variable Bitrates over set bitrates

[quality]

canada joe - Dont even bother replying to me, dont even look at my posts, just leave it be.

[NRen2k5]

Keep in mind that the higher the bitrate, the more space the MP3's will take up on your hard drive.

Anyway, if you listen to them on the PC or on a typical portable MP3 player, 160 or 192kbps using Lame should be good enough that you'll never hear a difference from CD.

Or if quality is really important to you, you should consider abandoning the MP3 format and using Musepack instead.