128 is a compromise between storage and quality--a bad compromise. I listen to the greatest rock band on the planet, and Ann Wilson's voice can't be contained in 128kb. Aamof, I can't stand to listen to ANY music at 128.
-------------------- "In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush, from John Kennedy to Albert Gore. Now if that is evolution, I believe that in about 12 years, we're gonna be voting for plants." --Comedian Lewis Black ...... Original Message ....... On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:42:33 -0400 Jeffrey Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello, Jeffrey Kaplan. > >On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:04:04 -0400 you said: > >> > Depends largely on the bitrate. Most people use 128kbps, which is truly >> > awful. I use 256kbps, which is much closer to the CD. Either way, being >> >> 128 is not "truly awful". And in a car, the road noise removes the >> fidelity difference anyway. >> >> 256 is better quality. > >Here's an interesting article in The Boston Globe about the marketing >behind lower-quality speakers, etc. While not specifically related, I >think it's the same general thing: People use the items with lower >sound quality because they're convenient. > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqgzm5 > >-- >Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org >The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol > >"Die, Nerd-boy!" - Bun-Bun, 'Sluggy Freelance' > >
