Re: Apple ][ Boogie - mp3 music online

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Paul (carbide@egine.com) wrote:

>Sean Fahey wrote:
>> "Mike" <abc@def.ghi> wrote in message
>> news:abc-79F65A.13193818012005@28-74.newscene.com...
>>
>> > While I appreciate the effort, I have to wonder - why even bother
>with
>> > 128k MP3s?  They should be at least 192, and preferably 256k.
>>
>> Since they were sampled from tape, why bother going over 128? Isn't
>CD
>> quality for most people at around 160? This isn't a troll, I'm just
>curious
>> why you feel they should have been sampled higher - I am not an audio
>> engineer.
>
>Exactly. I use 192K for CD's (according to what experts have written,
>more is overkill) but with cassettes you'd just get hi fi hiss. No
>point. File size was an issue, too, since I don't have a high-bandwidth
>connection. It would have taken twice as long to upload at 256K.
>
>The acid test- is there anyone who'd put money on their ability to
>distinguish  these songs ripped at 128K and 256K? All eight, listen to
>both versions, and consistently distinguish the 128K from the 256K?
>I know I couldn't do it. I doubt if many people could either.