The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

New Pocast Bitrate

by Zombie Bender / September 7, 2007 6:11 AM PDT

Feel free to leave the podcast at 64k I didn't notice any quality difference.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: New Pocast Bitrate
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: New Pocast Bitrate
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Sounded the same to me....
by nekogami13 / September 7, 2007 8:13 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

Then again I was using one of those audio players made by the company Molly hates-so who knows.

Collapse -
Stay @ 64kbps.
by Jawshy / September 7, 2007 11:56 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

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.

Collapse -
Please don't make 64kbps the standard.
by zisper / September 10, 2007 9:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Stay @ 64kbps.

I thought it sounded far too harsh, it's easily understandable etc, but it's not at all pleasant to listen too.

Collapse -
in a gesture to support Buzztown listeners...
by shawnlin / September 10, 2007 9:43 AM PDT

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.


Collapse -
by Dirty Pirate / September 10, 2007 1:44 PM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Seems like I might be in the minority....
by zisper / September 10, 2007 5:35 PM PDT
In reply to: Bitrates

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. Happy
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.

Collapse -
There's some...
by three_toed_frog / September 10, 2007 11:36 PM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Sounds distorted to me...
by shelf_stud / September 11, 2007 12:12 AM PDT
In reply to: There's some...

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!

Collapse - there's an in-between bitrate...72kbps?..
by shawnlin / September 11, 2007 10:13 AM PDT

and Aditya - since you were among the first to request the lower bitrate, what did you think of it?...

Collapse -
I know there is 80kbps...
by indy1333 / September 11, 2007 10:32 AM PDT

..and that is exactly halfway between 64k and 96k. Good compromise, no?

Collapse -
I agree with Pirate and Shalin
by indy1333 / September 11, 2007 9:14 AM PDT

There is definately a difference, but its not unbearable. I'm all for 64kbps if it makes the podcast more accessable for everyone.

Collapse -
Sounds awful
by ek08 / September 11, 2007 5:20 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

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.

Collapse -
Please go back to the old bitrate!
by LifeStar / September 12, 2007 12:12 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast 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.

Collapse -
by raygun01 / September 12, 2007 4:34 AM PDT

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! Wink

Collapse -
Only an hour?
by milkky / September 12, 2007 5:30 AM PDT
In reply to: FYI...

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!

Collapse -
Thanks for the new bit Rate
by ozyman4269 / September 13, 2007 1:28 AM PDT
In reply to: FYI...

Makes a big difference in my DL Time out here in Phuket

Collapse -
Sounding Better...
by zisper / September 13, 2007 10:24 AM PDT
In reply to: FYI...


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).

Collapse -
I fink...
by navsimpson / September 13, 2007 10:46 AM PDT
In reply to: FYI...

That the sound quality is fine @ 64kbs - but am I the only one still hearing artifacts?

Collapse -
Works for me.
by Renegade Knight / September 13, 2007 12:10 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

I listen at work and it sounds the same to me.

Collapse -
I'm good either way
by Ron-Mexico / September 13, 2007 5:57 AM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

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.)

Collapse -
Thought it sounded terrible
by Nicholas Buenk / September 13, 2007 1:11 PM PDT
In reply to: New Pocast Bitrate

But then realised it was because Molly was calling in that day and it sounded like a web voice call hence very compressed. Grin

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


$16,000 used SUVs

Whether you like your SUVs cute or capable, or some blend of the two, we've got a wide variety of choices in Roadshow's first collection of Editors' Used Picks.