What's your preferred *minimum* bitrate?

[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.

[LMan]

Heyho,

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

- Markus

[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.

[tom]

128 kbps/44 kHz i think this is okydoke ! But i will switch to 160kbps to keep the high freq. clear !!!

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[Makke]

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.

[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]

<<<
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

[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" ?