3 ms·
To what can I attribute the consistently horrible quality of 64kHz streams ten or fifteen years ago? Would that fall under the "bad encoder" bucket? Edit: chri
by sliverstorm 11y ago
To what can I attribute the consistently horrible quality of 64kHz streams ten or fifteen years ago? Would that fall under the "bad encoder" bucket?
Edit: christ, I mixed up bitrates (e.g. 192kbps) with sampling frequency (e.g. 192kHz) again. I was referring to 64kbps streams.
- CamperBob2 11y ago64 kHz isn't a standard sample rate -- you're probably thinking of the bit rate of an MP3 or AAC file. A 64-kbit MP3 does sound pretty awful.
- sliverstorm 11y agoYup. Further confusing me was the fact that (if memory serves) Apple did offer MP3's at 192kbps for a while, before upping to 320kbps. Edit: apparently my memory is worse than I thought.
- epmatsw 11y agoiTunes has offered 128kps AAC and 256kbps AAC files. Now it's only the 256kbps versions.
- Xixi 11y agoHasn't Apple always been offering AAC? At first at 128 kbps and then 256 kbps.
- comex 11y agoApple doesn't sell 320kbps anything, but 256kbps AAC, which is probably better than 320kbps MP3.
- joosters 11y agomp3 encoders have gotten better over time. As well as general improvements in fidelity, older encoders had bugs that would cause occasional terrible encoding for fragments of a sample.