[ChrisCoaster]

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

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Loki Harfagr]

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 ;-(

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Trevor]

"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.

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[ChrisCoaster]

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!

[ChrisCoaster]

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.

[geoff]

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