If you can export a 128 kHz mp3 with no artifacts using some superior codec then why even bother making 320 kHz mp3s when the only point of mp3s is to reduce file size? 

WDI, I guess you never ever uploaded any songs to the internet before. Most media players that are integrated into websites only take MP3's. So why in the world would you want to uplaod a 128 bitrate when you can keep most of the sound quality in a MP3 at 320 bitrate? The differenc ebetween 128 and 320 bitrate is HUGE!!!


That's one great reason why WDI. But if you dont care about sound quality, then you have no need to use a 320 bitrate and you can stick with 128 bitrate.

CJ

CJaysMusic


I can export an MP3 with 128 bitrate and have no artifacts. So it pretty clear that your MP3 converter is pretty 'lame', no pun intended :)

As said before, 320 is the closest you can get to a 16bit, 44.1khz wave file in sound quality and htis is what i export to. A few KB/s's is nothing to worry about. If your worry about a few kb/s, then its time to purchase a hard drive. 


CJ

This is what I was referring to. Thought that was obvious. 

I guess we are saying the same thing relatively speaking. 

I was just questioning you saying you can export a 128 kHz mp3 without artifacts. I dont think so. You make it sound like if you can't it's because of the codec. Then you went on to say you export at 320 khz. So i asked why do that if your 128 has no artifacts. See the contradiction. I was asking what you use that you can. But sounds like you can't so I must have misunderstood what you were saying. 

Don't worry, I understand mp3s and what they are used for.  Where in the world did you get the idea I use 128 kHz mp3? I think you fail at reading posts cj.  Or maybe just misunderstand what I was getting at.

No WDI, your saying this below

"why even bother making 320 kHz mp3s when the only point of mp3s is to reduce file size?"

 
 
I'm not saying what you are saying. There are reasons why you should use 320 bitrate and your saying "Why Bother"
 
We are at opposite poles regarding this. You can use 128 with lower sound quality and ill keep on using 320 bitrate
 
Cj

WDI

CJaysMusic


I can export an MP3 with 128 bitrate and have no artifacts. So it pretty clear that your MP3 converter is pretty 'lame', no pun intended :)

As said before, 320 is the closest you can get to a 16bit, 44.1khz wave file in sound quality and htis is what i export to. A few KB/s's is nothing to worry about. If your worry about a few kb/s, then its time to purchase a hard drive. 


CJ

If you can export a 128 kHz mp3 with no artifacts using some superior codec then why even bother making 320 kHz mp3s when the only point of mp3s is to reduce file size? Don't keep this codec a secret. What is it?

Cj you should go work or the news media with your partial quoting and twisting of what's being said to suit your own objective what ever that is right or wrong. 



Above is the whole quote. It's obviously what's being said. Sorry you still live in your own misguided world. 

Dude, stop trying to back out of your stupid quote. you said what you said. I'm sorry you said it as it boggle me to think you never think about sound quality and then you say we are saying the same thing. HUH???? We are not saying the same thing.

If you can export a 128 kHz mp3 with no artifacts using some superior codec then why even bother making 320 kHz mp3s when the only point of mp3s is to reduce file size? Don't keep this codec a secret. What is it?

 
Ill say this, again for you.
Most media players that are integrated into websites only take MP3's. So why in the world would you want to upload a 128 bit rate when you can keep most of the sound quality in a MP3 at 320 bitrate? The difference between 128 and 320 bitrate is HUGE!!!
That is one reason why you should not use 128bitrate. 30 is way better, so you can keep thinking that the only difference in 128 bitrate and 320 bitrate is file size, but its not. and i'm 1000000% correct on this. Its simple mathematics.
 
The higher the bitrate, the better the sound quality. Maybe you need to go back to school or maybe not, since i just schooled you!!! :)
 
You are saying, "why bother using 128" and that is not whats is being said LOL. I just explained the reason why you should bother using 320 for your MP3s.

Lets make this simple WDI:
Your saying "Why Bother converting to 320 if you can conver to 128 with no artifacts"
I'm saying "You should bother, if you care about sound quality"

Oh, hey Tim Tim.

Timayy!!!!

Nuh-nuh-nuh-nice chair you got thu-there Tim Tim.

Timayy!!!!

@ CJ


OMG! This is so ridiculous and I'm sure anyone reading this is having a very good laugh. I would be. Don't know why I'm wasting my breath as this will more than likely go over your head again. I'll try my best to explain this again. To me it was clear what I was trying to convey. But maybe not. And dude, I've been around here long enough and seen your posts to know you can't school me. And by the way, I never participated in some of those CJ bashing threads in the past when I had every good reason too. We are saying the same thing. Higher bit rate MP3s sound better. That is obvious. We agree! This whole thing started from me questioning this, what you posted...
[font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; line-height: normal"]

CJaysMusic 


I can export an MP3 with 128 bitrate and have no artifacts. So it pretty clear that your MP3 converter is pretty 'lame', no pun intended :) 

As said before, 320 is the closest you can get to a 16bit, 44.1khz wave file in sound quality and htis is what i export to. A few KB/s's is nothing to worry about. If your worry about a few kb/s, then its time to purchase a hard drive.  


CJ 

Looks like your saying you can output a 128 bit rate mp3 with no artifacts. To me this sounds like your saying no artifacts, meaning it does not suffer from the low quality sound of low bit rate mp3s.


I asked you what codec you're using that does this. You still have not answered.


My comment of...

If you can export a 128 kHz mp3 with no artifacts using some superior codec then why even bother making 320 kHz mp3s when the only point of mp3s is to reduce file size?

That was pointed at you for what you said. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that fact.


I'm definitely not saying lower bit rate mp3s sound as good as higher bit rate mp3s. I never said that. Or intended to say that.


I don't know how to make this any clearer.


Sorry to the rest about this meaningless rant. But it totally bugs me when someone says I'm saying something that I'm not. And maybe my earlier posts were not clear. I can handle that and can clarify what I intended to say.


CJ has done this in the past where his only intention is to try to get people upset. He has posted numerous times he enjoys doing that. He likes to call other people kids but in reality he acts like a kid and just like a bully. That is why so many on this forum felt compelled to give him a hard time in the past after years of him doing this.

And this forum software does blow!

I had the most difficult time getting the above post formatted how I wanted it. Then on top of that it's not formatted correctly.

I'd fix it. But when I went in to edit it it was messing it up more.

LOL.

Oh well.

Don't make me stop this car.... :)
 
Bob Bone