Question: Is "128" Totally Irrelevant As A Bitrate?

[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

[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.

[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 ;-(

[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 11, 10:58*am, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> 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!

Let me clarify: I CAN hear the tightening up and increased
dynamics(punch) of the low end on progressively higher bit rates as
well as the smoothness of the mids. It's my personal lack of TOP that
anything over 192kbps is wasted on.
LOL!

-ChrisCoaster

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
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

-----------------------------

Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not encoding,
downloading, or listening to it!

Trevor.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 11, 4:00*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> 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
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not encoding,
> downloading, or listening to it!
>
> Trevor.
____________________
Well it should at least have obtained the status of 8-track tapes &
Betamax by now. LOL! Seriously.

It's like listening to your favorite music with your head in an
aquarium.

-CC

[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.

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
Well it should at least have obtained the status of 8-track tapes &
Betamax by now. LOL! Seriously.

------------

It nearly has. There are still a few around, as there are cassettes.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 3:20 pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> 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.

}Then again, most cassette I've listened to does not sound like the
}Beatles' voices through the rotating Leslie speaker in a Hammond organ.

Right, most of them were worse :-(
(And most 128kbs MP3's not as bad as that either)

Trevor.

[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

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> ...
> 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
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not
> encoding, downloading, or listening to it!


Similar to why we ban herion and methamphetimine.

geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Hell no ! Cassettes never put phasers onto cymbal decays and light
> acoustic guitars. Just hiss.

You have a cassette with NO wow and flutter or scrape noise, and with
perfect phase alignment? Better than a Nakamichi Dragon then. (but better
R2R machines were available for that kind of money). And what about the
problems caused by Dolby NR on any cassette machine. Even Nakamichi couldn't
change the laws of physics when it came to high frequencies at higher levels
on cassette tape.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>> Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not
>> encoding, downloading, or listening to it!
>
> Similar to why we ban herion and methamphetimine.

What similarities?

Trevor.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 12, 1:02*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not
> >> encoding, downloading, or listening to it!
>
> > Similar to why we ban herion and methamphetimine.
>
> What similarities?
>
> Trevor.
_________________
I think he's making fun of my Beatle reference. Tape cassette never
had the "metallic swirlly" sound peculiar to low bitrate mp3s - such
as 128s. I referred to it as the Hammond organ effect.

-ChrisCoaster

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
>I think he's making fun of my Beatle reference. Tape cassette never
had the "metallic swirlly" sound peculiar to low bitrate mp3s - such
>as 128s. I

Right, it had even worse problems instead :-(

Trevor.

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Why does it need to be banned, YOU already have the option of not
>>> encoding, downloading, or listening to it!
>>
>> Similar to why we ban herion and methamphetimine.
>
> What similarities?

Generally bad for peopel and society as a whole.

geoff

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hell no ! Cassettes never put phasers onto cymbal decays and light
>> acoustic guitars. Just hiss.
>
> You have a cassette with NO wow and flutter or scrape noise, and with
> perfect phase alignment? Better than a Nakamichi Dragon then. (but
> better R2R machines were available for that kind of money). And what
> about the problems caused by Dolby NR on any cassette machine. Even
> Nakamichi couldn't change the laws of physics when it came to high
> frequencies at higher levels on cassette tape.
>
> Trevor.

But somebody, apparently, can change t5he laws of physics wrt lossy
encoding at low bitrates.

geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> But somebody, apparently, can change t5he laws of physics wrt lossy
> encoding at low bitrates.

They can, who?
To be clear, both cassette and 128kbs MP3 are inferior music storage formats
no real argument there.
IMO the sum total of all problems introduced by cassette recording/playback
was greater than the sum total of problems caused by 128kbs MP3 encoding
with half way decent encoders.
Your opinion may differ, but it's still just that :-)

Trevor.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 14, 12:48*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > But somebody, apparently, can change t5he laws of physics wrt *lossy
> > encoding at low bitrates.
>
> They can, who?
> To be clear, both cassette and 128kbs MP3 are inferior music storage formats
> no real argument there.
> IMO the sum total of all problems introduced by cassette recording/playback
> was greater than the sum total of problems caused by 128kbs MP3 encoding
> with half way decent encoders.
> Your opinion may differ, but it's still just that :-)
>
> Trevor.
_______
I'll take a properly recorded cassette, produced on calibrated
equipment and played back on a properly aligned deck over a 128k mp3
ANYDAY.

thank you.

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
>I'll take a properly recorded cassette, produced on calibrated
equipment and played back on a properly aligned deck

Yeah like there are SO many of those tapes and decks around! :-)

>over a 128k mp3 ANYDAY.

As I said, you're welcome to your choices. Me I'd simply opt for FLAC or
Wave recording and storage at a ***minute*** percentage of the cost of any
half way decent cassette recorder and quality tape!

Trevor.

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'll take a properly recorded cassette, produced on calibrated
> equipment and played back on a properly aligned deck
>
> Yeah like there are SO many of those tapes and decks around! :-)
>
>> over a 128k mp3 ANYDAY.
>
> As I said, you're welcome to your choices. Me I'd simply opt for FLAC
> or Wave recording and storage at a ***minute*** percentage of the
> cost of any half way decent cassette recorder and quality tape!


Well that's changing the rules. FLAC (or equiv) is top - as good as the
source.

But 128kbps and cassette - I'd take the cassette any day.

geoff

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 17, 4:04*am, "geoff" > wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
> > "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> I'll take a properly recorded cassette, produced on calibrated
> > equipment and played back on a properly aligned deck
>
> > Yeah like there are SO many of those tapes and decks around! :-)
>
> >> over a 128k mp3 ANYDAY.
>
> > As I said, you're welcome to your choices. Me I'd simply opt for FLAC
> > or Wave recording and storage at a ***minute*** percentage of the
> > cost of any half way decent cassette recorder and quality tape!
>
> Well that's changing the rules. FLAC (or equiv) is top - as good as the
> source.
>
> But 128kbps and cassette - I'd take the cassette any day.
>
> geoff
_________________
THANK

YOU

GEOFF!!

(someone on here used just 3 brain cells and actually got my point -
see folks, it's not that difficult!)

-CC

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> But 128kbps and cassette - I'd take the cassette any day.

As I said you're welcome to it! I used R2R when everyone else was using
cassette, and I still don't find 128kbs as objectionable as cassette, even
though I don't see a need for 128kbs either!
I still fail to see the point of your discusson however, are we going to
discuss whether steel or bamboo needles are better next, or pehaps the
benefits of lateral Vs vertical groove modulation? :-) How about 8" floppy
disks Vs 5.25" or 3.5" ones :-) :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
>
> But 128kbps and cassette - I'd take the cassette any day.
>
> geoff
_________________
}THANK YOU GEOFF!!

}(someone on here used just 3 brain cells and actually got my point -
}see folks, it's not that difficult!)


And IF you'd been able to find four brain cells still functioning, you would
have asked why anyone would use EITHER cassette OR 128kbs MP3 in this day
and age, just as *I* did!!!

Trevor.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 18, 4:20*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > But 128kbps and cassette - I'd take the cassette any day.
>
> > geoff
> _________________
> }THANK YOU GEOFF!!
> }(someone on here used just 3 brain cells and actually got my point -
> }see folks, it's not that difficult!)
>
> And IF you'd been able to find four brain cells still functioning, you would
> have asked why anyone would use EITHER cassette OR 128kbs MP3 in this day
> and age, just as *I* did!!!
>
> Trevor.
___________

this one's not worth my time . . .

[ChrisCoaster]

On Nov 18, 4:15*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
and I still don't find 128kbs as objectionable as cassette, even
> > Trevor.
_____________________
Unless the playback or record heads were so out of line or so filthy
on that tape deck, you don't have a stick to stand on with that
ridiculous collection of words!

-CC

[Trevor]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
}Unless the playback or record heads were so out of line or so filthy
}on that tape deck, you don't have a stick to stand on with that
}ridiculous collection of words!


You forgot to add the most important part to that claim, IYNSHO!
(In your not so humble opinion)

Trevor.