Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
Seriously!
Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. -ChrisCoaster |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Oct 31, 10:53*am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. *For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. * -ChrisCoaster ________________ Come on folks - this isn't a post about lacy lingerie or cleavage! Seriously, I'm still finding a lot of "128"s on the web(mp3s encoded at 128kbps). Shouldn't such a low bitrate be outlawed? -CC |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
wrote: On Oct 31, 10:53*am, ChrisCoaster wrote: Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. *For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. * -ChrisCoaster ________________ Come on folks - this isn't a post about lacy lingerie or cleavage! Seriously, I'm still finding a lot of "128"s on the web(mp3s encoded at 128kbps). Shouldn't such a low bitrate be outlawed? -CC Try encoding with AAC at 128kbits/sec and prepare to be pleasantly surprised. MP3 is SO last millennium. d |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Nov 1, 3:41*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster wrote: On Oct 31, 10:53*am, ChrisCoaster wrote: Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. *For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. * -ChrisCoaster ________________ Come on folks - this isn't a post about lacy lingerie or cleavage! Seriously, I'm still finding a lot of "128"s on the web(mp3s encoded at 128kbps). *Shouldn't such a low bitrate be outlawed? -CC Try encoding with AAC at 128kbits/sec and prepare to be pleasantly surprised. MP3 is SO last millennium. d- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - _____________ Will iPods and other mp3 players be able to play them? -ChrisCoaster |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:02:37 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
wrote: On Nov 1, 3:41*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster wrote: On Oct 31, 10:53*am, ChrisCoaster wrote: Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. *For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. * -ChrisCoaster ________________ Come on folks - this isn't a post about lacy lingerie or cleavage! Seriously, I'm still finding a lot of "128"s on the web(mp3s encoded at 128kbps). *Shouldn't such a low bitrate be outlawed? -CC Try encoding with AAC at 128kbits/sec and prepare to be pleasantly surprised. MP3 is SO last millennium. d- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - _____________ Will iPods and other mp3 players be able to play them? iPods will. As for MP3 players - it depends. d |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:21:50 +0000, Don Pearce did catÂ*:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:02:37 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster wrote: On Nov 1, 3:41Â*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster wrote: On Oct 31, 10:53Â*am, ChrisCoaster wrote: Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. Â*For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. Â* -ChrisCoaster ________________ Come on folks - this isn't a post about lacy lingerie or cleavage! Seriously, I'm still finding a lot of "128"s on the web(mp3s encoded at 128kbps). Â*Shouldn't such a low bitrate be outlawed? -CC Try encoding with AAC at 128kbits/sec and prepare to be pleasantly surprised. MP3 is SO last millennium. d- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - _____________ Will iPods and other mp3 players be able to play them? iPods will. As for MP3 players - it depends. and the same question proved to be a problem for Vorbis/ogg, a sad story sometimes is the Story of audio ;-( |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. 192 with joint stereo (ms) is where acceptable starts, and gets better if you start out with a quality sample rate conversion to 32 kHz sample rate. Makes life easier for the encoder and thus the treble less splatty. However you WILL end up doing it all in full wordlength, so why bother with wordlenght-reduction? -ChrisCoaster Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Nov 5, 8:36*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: Seriously! Aside from 1/2hour episodes of "The Shadow" or "Great Gildersleeve" radio shows, is the greatest thing to happen in the 1990s totally passe? My personal mp3 download minimum is 192kbps. *For rips - 256 if it's poppy stuff, 320 for jazz, classical, and stuff I just can't live without. * 192 with joint stereo (ms) is where acceptable starts, and gets better if you start out with a quality sample rate conversion to 32 kHz sample rate.. Makes life easier for the encoder and thus the treble less splatty. However you WILL end up doing it all in full wordlength, so why bother with wordlenght-reduction? -ChrisCoaster * Kind regards * Peter Larsen _____________________ I still see 128s out there and can really hear the difference between one of a song and a 192bit of that same song. I have a harder time hearing the diference going from 192 to 256kb and up though as i've lost me top! -CC |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
ChrisCoaster wrote:
I still see 128s out there and can really hear the difference between one of a song and a 192bit of that same song. I have a harder time hearing the diference going from 192 to 256kb and up though as i've lost me top! it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. -CC Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. Frankly I see no reason for less than 256kbs these days, but I sure as hell think 128kbs was better than compact cassette at least. Trevor. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Nov 10, 3:20*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. Frankly I see no reason for less than 256kbs these days, but I sure as hell think 128kbs was better than compact cassette at least. Trevor. _______________________ Well if you and Pete really want to know what I'm getting at here is - are you ready? BAN ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-EIGHT MBPS for music entirely!!!! It's still practical for most podcasts(90% spoken word), but I'm just as shocked that it's still out there. It does most genres of music NO justice, and it's simply not the breakthrough that it was over a decade ago when, when .... well what was the prevailing bitrate before the 128 plateau? -ChrisCoaster |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Nov 10, 3:20*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. Frankly I see no reason for less than 256kbs these days, but I sure as hell think 128kbs was better than compact cassette at least. Trevor. ____________________ For me: The difference from 64 or 80kbps to 128 is very, about a 10 on the Richter scale of improvement in earthquake terms(!) From 128 to 192, about a 5 on the richter scale. From 192 to 256 or higher: richter scale 1. (remember I'm essentially deaf above 14kHz). From 256 to 320 to CD? I couldn't distinguish those three for beans! |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
On Nov 10, 3:20*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. Frankly I see no reason for less than 256kbs these days, but I sure as hell think 128kbs was better than compact cassette at least. Trevor. ________________ Then again, most cassette I've listened to does not sound like the Beatles' voices through the rotating Leslie speaker in a Hammond organ. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?
Trevor wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... it is about clarity, bass tightness even, listen for the canvas, the small details in the room, that said I'll re-iterate that acceptable - defined as better than compact casette - starts at 192 kbit/s, in that we fully agree. Frankly I see no reason for less than 256kbs these days, but I sure as hell think 128kbs was better than compact cassette at least. Hell no ! Cassettes never put phasers onto cymbal decays and light acoustic guitars. Just hiss. geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Volume Level of "Tuner" vs that of "CD" "Tape" or "Phono" on my homestereo, boombox, or car receiver | Tech | |||
Jeff Liebermann -- "BIT-rate" and "SAMPLE-rate" are two totally different things. | Tech | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |