What's your preferred *minimum* bitrate?

Talk freely about the scene, the world of remixing, or anything off-topic unsuitable for the "Fun Forum".

What's your preferred *minimum* bitrate?

CBR: 128 kbps/44 kHz (the current minimum requirement)
14
50%
CBR: 160 kbps/44 kHz
7
25%
CBR: 192 kbps/44 kHz
6
21%
CBR: even higher bitrate
0
No votes
Forget CBR. Make VBR mp3s the default minimum
1
4%
 
Total votes: 28

User avatar
Jan Lund Thomsen
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 1152
Joined: 25/11/2002 - 13:16
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

What's your preferred *minimum* bitrate?

Post by Jan Lund Thomsen »

As you all probably know 128kbps/44kHz is the minimum bitrate for RKO uploads. Recently I have been thinking about upping the bar, what with the overall drop in harddrive/broadband costs, portable mp3 players that deal with just about any bitrate you throw at 'em, etc., etc.

Mind you, this is not to say that whatever option 'wins' this poll gets implemented. I just want to get a feel for the general consensus.

User avatar
LMan
R64 Founder
R64 Founder
Posts: 3504
Joined: 21/11/2002 - 12:44
Contact:

VBR

Post by LMan »

Heyho,

I wouldn't recommend making VBR a requirement, since some hardware/software still can't manage them properly.

- Markus

Makke
gooooooood!
gooooooood!
Posts: 1731
Joined: 21/11/2002 - 13:28
Location: Norrköping, Sweden

Post by Makke »

I'm a tad tourn here. I think 128 kbps is acceptable, but 192 kbps is preferable. There is a huge difference in audio quality between the two. Personally I don't like 160 kbps. My experience is that this bitrate cuts the higher fq's and muffles the base. It might only be my ears fooling me to think this, or maybe it's just because of one or two codecs, I don't know.

128 kbps is totally acceptable if it's encoded with a good codec. Bad codecs can turn 128 kbps into hell for the ears though. But then again bad codecs tend to jitter even at 192 kbps.

Let's put it like this. If I were to encode a CD from my CD collection I'd never use anything less than 192 (true stereo). However, some remixes on RKO is not CD quality, and 192 wouldn't actually add anything to 128 as the original quality is, not to say shite, below standards.

User avatar
tom
Forum Hero
Forum Hero
Posts: 593
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 21:15
Location: Germany
Contact:

BITRATE

Post by tom »

:) 128 kbps/44 kHz i think this is okydoke ! But i will switch to 160kbps to keep the high freq. clear !!!
Last edited by tom on 21/01/2003 - 19:55, edited 1 time in total.

Chris Abbott
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 5311
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 12:21
Location: Dubai. No, not really.
Contact:

Hmm...

Post by Chris Abbott »

I'm against setting a minimum rate larger than 128kbps. People should be encouraged to use higher, but I'm not convinced that the actual extra joy people would get from it would justify the extra file size.

Chris

Markus Schneider
Forum Celebrity
Forum Celebrity
Posts: 273
Joined: 21/11/2002 - 13:14
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Markus Schneider »

I am against higher bitrates because i know many people who can't or won't use broadband internet and so they still think about every download concerning the filesize. Increasing the bitrate will (probably) lower the downloads and this isn't good.
Markus

User avatar
Lurios
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 24/11/2002 - 6:38
Location: The Belt of Gawler - South Australia
Contact:

Post by Lurios »

I wouldn't like to see higher bitrates as a minimum.

broadband is not avaliable to me in an effective way (its cheaper to have 56k here) :evil:
large sizes are also a big factor and I know that I myself would be downlonding less often

User avatar
Orko
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 11:19
Contact:

Post by Orko »

How about using OggVorbis? Better quality at the same bitrate and free. :)

As for bitrates, check http://www.r3mix.net/ has a discussion on bitrates vs quality. Also has a lame command line which is supposed to give perfect quality VBR mp3s.

User avatar
Atroxis
Commodore Fan
Commodore Fan
Posts: 18
Joined: 23/11/2002 - 17:45
Location: Bingen / Germany
Contact:

Post by Atroxis »

I'd say that 128 kbit/s MP3 is pretty much okay, though I usually encode my songs at 160 kbit/s, cause you sometimes can hear encoding artefacts at 128... But as I don't have any broadband internet, I'd better deal with few artefacts instead of spending double the time for downloading a track... :)

Cheers,
Markus.

Bruno Falardeau
Commodore Fan
Commodore Fan
Posts: 21
Joined: 26/11/2002 - 23:20
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by Bruno Falardeau »

I say stick to 128,...

It's not that I can't make the difference between the different bitrates, it's just that the assumption that better broadbands are available to every mortal is false. I for one, am now currently stuck in my college dorms this semester. There used to be a good internet connection available here, I remember downloading stuff at 150k/s. However, that is a this of the past. I've been trying to download the Subversive Element's latest remix for a while now, and I've been peeked at 3k/s. Yes I can complain. Yes, I can pressure the dorms to do something about it... however, it is completely out of my power to get a better connection. So for the time being, I'm already struggling with the downloads, I don't really need files 50% better to be the minimum standard. Nonetheless, if you are to encode in 192, it's still all the better.

Bruno

User avatar
putzi
Forum Celebrity
Forum Celebrity
Posts: 430
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 12:38
Location: Düsseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by putzi »

Besides, I sometimes get the impression some people use a low bitrate like 128 to save the good quality output for a CD release, showing a behaviour against this "I do it all for fun"-remix scene. But I personally don´t buy any commercial CDs anyway, so do what you want, as long as the good guys release with 192 Kbit :-)
putzi

Makke
gooooooood!
gooooooood!
Posts: 1731
Joined: 21/11/2002 - 13:28
Location: Norrköping, Sweden

Post by Makke »

putzi wrote:Besides, I sometimes get the impression some people use a low bitrate like 128 to save the good quality output for a CD release, showing a behaviour against this "I do it all for fun"-remix scene.
That I seriously doubt. How many remixes that are on RKO have been featured on a CD after it's "RKO release"? Close to none! (The only ones I can think of are one or two Instant Remady tracks, but they were released several years before the CD was even thought of!)

Seriously, I'm getting tired of hearing that people who're making commercial CD's are looking to exploit the situation and scene. It's like the CD producing ones of this scene are the ones that are tearing it all down, and only in it for a quick profit. I think this comment was totally uncalled for :(

Just for the record, in 30-40 years time when RKO is all gone and most of us is sitting in a home trying to remember what the hell we actually did this morning, what will be left to show we were here? It's not a bunch of MP3's on a harddrive, I'll tell you that much.

User avatar
Rauli
Commodore Fan
Commodore Fan
Posts: 19
Joined: 03/12/2002 - 1:39

Post by Rauli »

Just for the record, in 30-40 years time when RKO is all gone and most of us is sitting in a home trying to remember what the hell we actually did this morning, what will be left to show we were here? It's not a bunch of MP3's on a harddrive, I'll tell you that much.
I have this feeling that "a buch of MP3's on a harddrive" could actually be exactly what we will be left to show. Wouldn't it be a bit "romantic" in a way?

Chris Abbott
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 5311
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 12:21
Location: Dubai. No, not really.
Contact:

Facts

Post by Chris Abbott »

<<<
That I seriously doubt. How many remixes that are on RKO have been featured on a CD after it's "RKO release"? Close to none!
>>>
If something is released on CD after it's been "talentspotted" on RKO, then it tends to have been completely rerecorded for CD (like O2's Zoids or "Galway is God" for instance). So apart from the Instant Remedy tracks (which were released in full WAV as a bonus because the space was there on the CD), there are no instances in which this is the case. Not even Slow Poison's "Wizball New Age" mix, which mysteriously doesn't even appear on the New Age CD.

Perhaps a bit of fact checking before making such divisive statements was in order?

> the good guys
And that makes us the "bad guys"? Puh-leeze.

Chris

User avatar
putzi
Forum Celebrity
Forum Celebrity
Posts: 430
Joined: 22/11/2002 - 12:38
Location: Düsseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by putzi »

Makke:
> That I seriously doubt. How many remixes that are on RKO have been
> featured on a CD after it's "RKO release"? Close to none!

See below. It´s not limited to actual CD releases, but just the possibility to sometime make one.

> what will be left to show we were here?

"This is a document to prove that I was here"... Assemblage23/Defiance/Document ;-)


Chris:
> Perhaps a bit of fact checking before making such divisive statements >was
> in order?

There is no way to look inside a brain and see if there is the thought "I release my work in 128 Kbit to save it for a CD release that maybe happens sometime." It´s only some speculation, but you cannot prove it is not true.
What is important for this thing is another thought linked to this thought for me:
how the hell can it be true that there are so many good musicians releasing productions very well arranged, but at the same time they throw their work into the trash by releasing an MP3 that is too often only a preview because of 128 Kbit? Even if you don´t hear artefacts, you cut the life partly out of a song by using only 128Kbit.

My comment was not limited to actual CD releases, it is more about people who think they will be the next "DJ Something" on MTV. Chris, you´re not going to tell me you believe everyone releasing on R64/RKO is an "open source musician" ?
putzi

Post Reply