| Home | Forums | Register | FAQ | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Welcome to the misticriver forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
| Tags: fm recording quality |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
T10 Best setting for FM recording, middle or high
As of right now, I can't tell the difference between an FM recording with the quality setting set to Middle versus High.
To make the files smaller, I'm thinking the middle setting may be better since I can't hear any difference. Anybody have a suggestion? I'm fairly pleased with the quality of FM recordings off of the T10 (as long as the reception is good anyway). I'm curious what others think. |
|
|||
|
Bit rates are as follows:
Low = 64 Med. = 128 High = 256 It depends on each individual's ears, their audio sensitivity. I can hear the difference, as can others, some people cannot. If you can't hear the difference between med. and high then you are one of those people who cannot hear the difference between 128 and 256. If that's the case then you may as well just use the medium setting for the advantage of smaller files. |
|
|||
|
Thanks ShyAnne. I'm doing some more experiments to see if I can hear the difference.
When we buy a song of MusicMatch, or Napster, etc is that usually 128, or 256, do you happen know? Can the quality of an FM recording, even if done at 256, approach that of a typical purchased/downloaded song? That probably depends on too many things for me to expect a simple answer. |