Folks:

I'm sure we would all agree that we want the best sound quality from any song.

It makes no sense to post MP3's using 128 kB/s because that really isn't top quality especially if you plan to burn the songs to CDR. It doesn't take that much more time to upload using a higher bit rate.

I'd recommend that all songs be posted at minimum 192 kB/s which makes it very hard to tell the difference from the original.


gcassan

I recommend that you be happy with everything that comes FREE to you.

How do you UP the kb/s to 192 ????

Ever Danced with a One Legged Woman?

stoneMe:

To answer that question depends on what the source is.

I'm assuming that you have originals on CD(R) and your using software to upload to your hard drive in which case you can decide on what bit rate you want to store the songs at. The higher the bit rate, the more content is retained when compressing songs as MP3 format.


Potted Shrimp:

I guess it depends on what your doing with the songs. I don't store the songs on an MP3 player but burn them to CDR. Of course, I appreciate getting free material just like everybody else but at the same time, seek the best possible source and quality if possible. I would suggest that you visit my thread for Hampton 1981 and then you will appreciate the difference it can make in using a higher bit rate to post the songs.



gcassan

I'v got Hampton on silver pressed cd, but thanks gcassan. No harm intended.

if you can post 192 kbps but sometimes 128kbps is the only source. I'm glad wit every new boot in my collection

So people why you do that?
instad to search for low generation audio tapes of existing material and transfer with good equipment on CD to make something better,you make existing material worst?Any reason for that?only reason is to be cheap, or free?

Hope not all receivers of our postins here are as whiny as certain others...

Goddam it - how old are ya people!? Have ya been forced to hear this music
on losy cassette tapes, recorded from vinyls, you should comprehend how to estimate & enjoy a-n-y digital sound... !! Behold this, please....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-16 22:42 by Baboon Bro.

it is not problem in hearing this music.Problem is more deaper.let's explain.
Someone post recording material on loosy 128 kb/s mp3.another person download that and after sometime give that to his friend."I have new stones material, wooww"after sometime, that person will share same loosy recording to another person...and....If you have desease, does it mean that you will share it with another people?or you will say, don't kiss me, I am not for kissing in this moment?

Well said sumi.

If it's quality you want, steer clear of MP3s altogether and stick to lossless (FLAC or SHN). Some of these recordings have lasted 30, 40 years - why degrade them now for your own personal convenience?

I prefer 320 kb/s myself. But the file is just too large.

gcassan,

when you download a mp3 link what are you downloading it to? Real Player, Windows Media Player, other?

The MP3 is downloaded to my harddrive and then I import it to iTunes where I have the option to convert it to AAC / MP3 or elect to burn to CDR as a wave file.

My problem is simple, I live in Australia . Our monopoly telco (Telstra) has capped d/l speed @ 1.5mb (!) A fair number of folks here are still on dial-up, I've got 512/128k which is above average, & for which I pay $80. Australian/month, which is average.

@ 128bits it takes me 1 1/2-2 hours to up one cd,3-4 hours for one average concert. You can immediately see my problem if I were to increase my bitrate by 50%.

I've got some good material over the net & I try wherever I can to share it but I do have another life & I have to be careful to balance these. Gardening chores over the weekend with Mrs Vox take priority over any Stones related business. (Unfortunately she is not a Stones fan)

Personally, 128bits is an absolute minimum with me & I'm quite happy with it, if a flac torrent shows up that I need/want I'll go for that too.

Hope this explains why I use 128bit mp3's.

Stillk I think is snobby; we all dont have too much space on our harddrives.
Its free to anyone just to not download what´s up there.
I spend loads of time just to give and all ya that aint
pleased can just @#$%& off!

and me i'm a techno-primitive with chicken bones in my hair.
all i can upload is stuff i've downloaded, so it's all just in whatever form i received it in.

Sorry, I raised the issue. The posting was merely a suggestion, not an imperative.

I guess If I want better quality for certain concerts, I'll just have to look elsewhere.

Regards

gcassan

Well said Baboon Bro in both your posts

Ever Danced with a One Legged Woman?

i'm not offended or anything by your suggestion, for people who are able to take it, but:

>> If I want better quality for certain concerts, I'll just have to look elsewhere <<

well ... yeah! one side effect of being a techno-primitive is that i don't treat downloads as a main source of music.
i don't want mp3s for my CDs either, but i get my CDs by buying or trading them, not by downloading stuff.
just a different approach ...


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I just want to thank anyone who has posted. The stuff is great. I'll take whatever great music I can, whatever the kb/s. Thanks

Sorry for my rude language before.
I´m sure you´re right, just different generations.
But a person who only has heard (e.g. my 2nd
last posted gem-group, Omega) vinyls made
in Hungary 1974-80 by certain groups,
released on Pepita-label, Hungarian state
record company while non-democracy, can nothing but
appreciate anything thats out there.
I´m pretty sure thats not available as FLACs...
I´ve awaited Hungary´s digitalization process
the latest years; and finally we got peolple uploadin'
over there. Lossless formats is next step.

So; sorry for being rude.

Issue aint wrong or anything, but I think I speak for
fairly many people here,m when I say that having lived
with vinyls for 3/4 of my life - and I´m 42 -
its just like paradise to collect the old favorites
with digital sound. Mostly I hear small or no
difference. Probably because I have such a lousy
eqcuipment.

...And generally I cant find downloading of my own vinyls
as mp3 morally wrong... You?

with sssoul,

When you buy cd boots are you not buying some cd's that were made by burning mp3 files?

gcassan,

If you are downloading an mp3 that was posted at 128kbps how can you improve the file to 192kbps or higher?

ssoul:

I assumed that the source is an original copy, not an MP3 that was already compressed.

gcassan

>> with sssoul, When you buy cd boots are you not buying some cd's that were made by burning mp3 files? <<

no - i don't trade for mp3 bootlegs. like i said: i don't want mp3s on my cds.
(and i don't buy bootlegs, i trade for them. i buy official releases.)

>> ssoul: I assumed that the source is an original copy, not an MP3 that was already compressed. <<

i understand that's what you were thinking, Gcassan, and i think your suggestion is fine *if* people have the capability -
but as we see, for various reasons not everyone can comply with it.
which i personally also think is fine, because (as i noted) i don't treat downloads as a main source of music.
i only piped up at all because it was sort of starting to sound like some people feel some of us are thoughtlessly doing something to hurt the music,
and that's not always the case. some of us are very appreciative of good non-lossy stuff, even if we're not equipped to upload everything in that form.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-18 12:43 by with sssoul.

with sssoul:

Downloading MP3's offers me the chance to sample stuff that I don't have and then I can decide whether I wish to purchase an original copy at a record show.

gcassan

You can increase the bitrate of a 128 file but that will NOT improve the quality. You can compare this to blowing up a low res picture. You can increase the number of pixels but not the quality.


When you buy a CDR there is no way of telling if the music was convertedfrom poor MP3 files of by copying from a better quality cd source. In cdr boots there's just no garantee.


I apprciate the initial posters request for uploading in your best available quality but I will be happy with anything.

Promoman:

You're absolutely right; however, you can use the internet reviews as a guide to the best sounding bootlegs. Any that I have bought, are the highest rated ones.

gcassan

>> When you buy a CDR there is no way of telling if the music was converted from poor MP3 files of by copying from a better quality cd source. <<

well ... you can tell by listening to them, at least a lot of the time.
and i can reject CDs that are clearly comprised of mp3s; and i can avoid converting stuff to a lossy format when i pass it along.

I only play MP3s nowadays and it occurs to me that:
- my Creative harddisk player gives a 100x better sound connected to either my car stero or home stereo than the stick-like-player I usually use for running when I connect that in the same way.
- it is very much worthwhile investing a bit more in speakers or good earplugs. I use Sony's now that really go into my ears (My ears don't hold regular plugs, they keep falling out and they hurt.).

The gain here more than makes up for the quality difference between 128k or 192k. To be honest I don't hear that much difference anywhare over 128k.

i have quite decent speakers, thanks! but they're connected to my (quite decent) CD player, not my computer.
smile: do i seem a bit touchy about audio-quality issues? sorry - if so, it's a long and complex story.
i assume we all mean well, and don't intend any harm to the music. anyway i'll keep passing on what i can in the best form i can,
and if it's not good enough for someone, that's cool too! especially if it inspires you to seek out the best available sources.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith