New Pocast Bitrate
by Zombie Bender - 9/7/07 1:11 PM
Feel free to leave the podcast at 64k I didn't notice any quality difference.
by: Zombie Bender September 7, 2007 1:11 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
Total posts: 22 (Showing page 1 of 1)
Sounded the same to me....
Then again I was using one of those audio players made by the company Molly hates-so who knows.
I did not notice any difference in bitrate--and frankly I was shocked when Jason announced it--so please keep it at 64bkps. I'm not bandwith impaired but a faster-downloading, more battery-friendly podcast is welcomed. I started listening to my iPod through my iPod headphones then migrated over to my iHome. I'm one who encoded their music at high bitrates in AAC; I can usually tell difference in bitrate in music.
Please don't make 64kbps the standard.
I thought it sounded far too harsh, it's easily understandable etc, but it's not at all pleasant to listen too.
in a gesture to support Buzztown listeners...
in a gesture to support Buzztown listeners an ocean away, have you tried a different headphones, etc. and still it sounds harsh? I can also tell a difference, but I find it to be negligible.
I have to agree with Shalin. 64kbps is just fine for the spoken word. I remember thinking it was crap, but them I invested into some new headphones and wow, what a difference.
Seems like I might be in the minority....
I'm one of the listeners that is an ocean away, and I'd still rather the higher bitrate to remove some of the over compressed sound.
I use the earphones I do because I want ones that are fairly neutral and reproduce whatever I'm listening to with little bias. I guess I could get some worse ones that would blur the sound so I didn't notice the difference, but I'm not going to do that.
Anyway, I'm happy to accept that I'm in the minority, but I just thought there should be some counterpoint to all the "it sounds fine comments". It doesn't sound fine to everyone.
roughness to the audio, but it's not offensive. It might not be the bit rate its self, but rather the way that specific encoder handles the audio.
For MP3, while decoding is strictly defined, encoding is not... so it's left up to the writer of the encoder to figure out the best method of compressing the data.
Sounds distorted to me...
I've just been catching up on a week's worth of BOL as I've been away, and the last couple are definitely slightly distorted compared to previous episodes.
It seems more noticeable as the conversation gets 'more active', especially on Molly's voice.
My vote's for the old bit rate!
hmm...is there's an in-between bitrate...72kbps?..
and Aditya - since you were among the first to request the lower bitrate, what did you think of it?...
I know there is 80kbps...
by indy1333 - 9/11/07 5:32 PM
In Reply to: hmm...is there's an in-between bitrate...72kbps?.. by shawnlin
..and that is exactly halfway between 64k and 96k. Good compromise, no?
I agree with Pirate and Shalin
There is definately a difference, but its not unbearable. I'm all for 64kbps if it makes the podcast more accessable for everyone.
The last few after the bit rate change has sounded kinda tinny. I thought it was my speakers at home but it sounds just as bad at work.
Please go back to the old bitrate!
Episode 558 contains a lot of audio artifacts! I understand that some people were complaining about the size of the audio files previously, but the quality is being sacrificed! Molly's voice especially contains more artifacts than Tom's. V. did a compromise for us before when she switched us to a pure mono channel audio file with the same bitrate when compared to a stereo version. That was a good call, this time around, no, just bad.
558 is in it's own class because Molly was calling in from home using a Comrex unit that compresses her voice and sends it to our studio over the phone line. Believe it or not, the quality of the voice coming in over the Comrex is better than coming in over a phone line. So her audio yesterday is degraded, especially in comparison to Tom's, who was in the studio.
I also realized today that the version of the LAME MP3 encoder we had installed in the audio studio was out of date. I upgraded the version today and must say that I hear a difference in the quality of the encoding. Please, tell me what you think.
I do want the show to sound as good as it can without requiring people on limited speed connections to sit for an hour downloading it. It must be a balance, and well... you know, there's a lot of you out there!
First of all--full kudos for you for working on this and continuing to tweak--really, this is great to see progress on. You're making a lot of people's frustration levels drop with this move.
But, you still don't have the full dismal picture--when I was dialup, I would have been thrilled if it had only taken an hour. As a rough rule of thumb, it was between 2 and 3 times the playback time. I could only count on 26.4--and sometimes well under that--and I was like a mile outside a major city! Lord knows what they are getting in the real boonies!
Makes a big difference in my DL Time out here in Phuket
I'm thinking it sounds better too. (And from a technical point I do think that 64kbs should be fine for voice....) Or possibly I'm getting used to it.... Either way, I'm happy enough with the way it sounds on the most recent podcast (560).
That the sound quality is fine @ 64kbs - but am I the only one still hearing artifacts?
I listen at work and it sounds the same to me.
I'm good either way
I didn't notice much of a difference as I generally listen to these in the car and there's a lot of ambient noise as it is. But even listening in my office I couldn't tell much of a difference. It's generally not that much bigger a download (although for those of us with flash-based devices, space is a more precious commodity.)
Thought it sounded terrible
But then realised it was because Molly was calling in that day and it sounded like a web voice call hence very compressed.
Total posts: 22 (Showing page 1 of 1)