Posted by Broadway Blue on 12/03/07 19:17

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:4753F209.B4690326@hotmail.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Broadway Blue" wrote
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>>> "Eeyore" wrote...
>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned
>>>>>>>> files! I just closed my eyes and heard the
>>>>>>>> difference even better. The MP3 is significantly
>>>>>>>> cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
>>>>>>>> with those formats at 128 kbps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ?
>>>>>>> They're a waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire
>>>>>> discussion. WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it
>>>>>> is. If you don't like how it sounds on some
>>>>>> particular music, then bump the bitrate or use some
>>>>>> other encoding. End of
>>>>>> discussion. Unless you are developing audio
>>>>>> compression codecs, in which case, this is the wrong
>>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11
>>>>> pence each ! Why on earth bother with compression ?
>>>>
>>>> Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB
>>>> iPod Nano, not compressing your music would result in
>>>> having very few tracks on your portable player to listen
>>>> to!!!
>>>
>>> 4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs.
>>
>> Or ~ 500 compressed songs @ 320 kbps.
>>
>> Still no need for 128k.
>
> I think that the advice along the lines of, if you don't like it, up
> the bitrate, is very practical advice.

I'd never go as low as 128kbps myself, in fact 192 kbps would be
the lowest I'd have on my MP3 player. As yes, 128kbps does sound
fairly crap.... but others may have better ears than me!

[Back to original message]