wrote:

I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s.
Of
course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year
old.
As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied
with the
results.

I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates.
It may
or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well
continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC?
Although I'm
not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be
nice to
know the optimum solution at 64kb/s.

Here's a recent article on tests of codecs for Internet radio:

http://www.slate.com/id/2112548

From there, you can download an EBU report on the listening tests,
which compared codecs at rates from 64kbps down to 16kbps (seriously).
At 64, WMA and AAC trailed mp3pro. If a 64kbps version of AACplus had
been available at the time, it probably would have won, since it
trounced everybody at 48kbps.

High-enders may be aghast at these low bit-rates. They aren't designed
to replace CDs. They're designed to lower the cost of broadcasting
Internet radio. But they're also pretty sophisticated in the way they
get the bit-rate down.

bob