Most of the shows I post here are at 320 kbps. Originally, they were in lossless format (SHN, Flac, APE). BIg files. I converted them to MP3. Much smaller files. I know there is a big debate over whether 320 kbps is worth it. I convert them to 320 to try to preserve as much as I can the quality of the lossless file. A lot of people say they can't tell the difference. Sometimes I can't either. Sometimes I can. I know I can always tell the difference with anything below 192 kbps. However, I understand it can be a big hassle to download so many files. So, the question is, what bit rate would you prefer to have these shows in? Does size matter? Will it feel as good at 192? Give me your opinion. I may change bit rates.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Hey Tony :)
I don't think it matters if the files are 192, as long as they are good encodes... meaning they don't have any nasty electronic artifacts or "sybllance" (where the music sounds like it is underwater)... thanks for taking time to share all this great stuff, much appreciated :)
i know it be a bother downloading three rapidshare files to get a gig...mainly because of the 80 min wait between downloads but i think its worth it because the quality of your uploads always sound so great...keep it as you are i think
mick d
Tony, personally I prefer the 320's to the 192's. Downloading big files is no issue for me
But seeing as they are free, well I'm not complaining.
It's your blog, do as you wish.
Thanks for the fantastic music!
Chris.
I like the 320 but, if you want/need to change it's all good. It can be a hassle to get the multiple parts but, the hassle is negligible.
thanks for providing the links!
Bob
192 would less mb's to d/l, which on rapidshare is a good thing since they have limits on d/l's.
but the music is what matters and it's worth the wait to get the higher quality.
thanks for the music!
Your blog is the best, so do as you wish amigo. However, I can't tell a difference between most 320 and 192 so for the sake of downloading more shows, my vote is for 192. Thanks again for all your efforts and hard work.
We want size, baby. The bigger, the better. Yes, there is a sound difference - on computers the smaller sizes might be ok -- but on a good home or car system -- no --you can tell the difference between a 192 and a 320 or more every time. You are one of the few blogs who post the higher bit rates and I really appreciate it. My vote is for the big sizes and continue with the GREAT music. You rock!
I agree with you that anything less than 192, you can tell the differance. in terms of bootlegs, the higher the better. personally when I rip my own CD's to load them on my IPod, I rip at 192.
I prefer flacs but for sharing mp3's I agree that 320 is the way to go to preserve as much of the quality as possible. Thanks for sharing the music!
For unlimited RapidShare downloads go here:http://readyouth.blogspot.com/2005/03/unlimited-rapidshare-downloads.html Greetings from the Netherlands.
Sorry link didn't come out right so here it is again: http://readyouth.blogspot.com/
2005/03/unlimited-rapidshare-downloads.html
vote: 320
better quality.
but thanks regardless for asking us.
bk
320 please ...
but thanks no matter what you decide.
Hello, 320 is always better, but 256 ain't a bad thing. If you want to do tweener......Thanks!!
I vote for 320 wherever possible. I don't mind multiple files for better quality. Thanks for all the great shows. They have been a real treat for live music lovers like myself. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication too.
your choice amigo
gerald , cardiff
Mp3 @320 CBR or VBR level 0...please!
Thx for the tunes TT :)
i prefer the 320 because i have a rapidshare account, but anthing from 192 or above would be ok. thanks a lot for your posts!!!
320 is my preference.
My question is why do some shows take up to five .rar files when the size (overall) is no more than some shows that are three rar. files? Sometimes the last two .rar files will have only two or three files each. This is not so much a complaint a wondering why.
This is my favorite (by far) blog and I am very glad you came back after being hacked by some idiot. Keep on, Keeping it on! And thanks.
320 please! Keep up the good work!!
320 please, would prefer FLAC but please no lower
It´s true, 320 is better than 256 which is better than 192, but bigger size means slower downloads and less storage space available so a compromise has to be made, me, I stick with 192, no less than that, if you post 320, I´ll be glad but the minimum allowed should be 192 in my opinion.
We want the best quality and if that takes longer - its worth it.
Quality is not just about size.
Too many bootlegs have been played with to the extent that all manner of unwanted distortions and artifacts are present. The same person ripping at 320 and 160 will get better rsults at 320. BUT his 160 will better than some others 320's.
So preferred fomat is FLAC or MP3@320 but its the end product that counts for me.
I prefer 320, but if you choose to reduce the size for your convenience, that would also be fine. I really appreciate all the great music you are sharing!
I much prefer 320 since I like my boots to sound as best as they can :)
My vote is for 320. Bigger is better. My new hard drive is on its way. The $ for rapidshare is money well spent.
320 all the way.. ;O)
Thanks for the tunes
I'm burning them to CD to play on my car system so "da bigga, da betta"
Tony, The two things that really set your site apart from the rest is the quality and the selection
Keep up the great work!
Victor
320 just sounds so much better than anything less - it would also be nice to try flac too - I'm sure it would be worth the download wait.
- but thanks for all the music.
Post a Comment