[Sheep]

dont understand

[Dopey]

I guess that is correct actually. However I do stand by the fact that there's no point going above 128.

Maybe in a wav file, unless you want to waste hard drive space

[Sidders]

Right done the maths. I don't expect most people to understand this so please ignore if you don't.

FM Radio is transmitted at a bandwidth of 22.05kHz (fmax). Therefore digital sampling needs to be performed at a frequency of 2 * fmax=44.1kHz. Each sample is 16 bits so this means 705.6kbps per channel is required. There are 2 channels because it's stereo which makes it 1.4112Mbps. That's for the raw data.

Now the compression. According to this site, the typical reduction ratio for FM radio quality sound is 24:1. 1.4112/24=0.0588=58kbps.

So technically 64kbps is more than good enough.

[Dopey]

yeah I agree with that, I can actually tell the difference between 64k and 128k as 64 is quite fuzzy, I actually think that 96k takes slightly longer to load as it isn't in pure numbers (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128)

[Uglybob]

Yes but some people would prefer better quality than small file sizes. It won't be too bad to download on broadband as good quality.

im going for the vast majority of people with 56k who cant afford broadband.

[Mcqueen_]

Yes but some people would prefer better quality than small file sizes. It won't be too bad to download on broadband as good quality.

im going for the vast majority of people with 56k who cant afford broadband.

People with 56k are now becoming a minority, not a majority though. Even the poll Here shows that there are as many people here with 56k as there are with higher.

I for one would prefer quality to smaller file size.

[Sidders]

yeah I agree with that, I can actually tell the difference between 64k and 128k as 64 is quite fuzzy

I don't believe it.

[jimmy g]

Just try it and you will notice the difference. If you want to compress, you should use Real Media, but they you will only be able to play it in RealOne.

[Ahh_Pathetic]

Yes but some people would prefer better quality than small file sizes. It won't be too bad to download on broadband as good quality.

im going for the vast majority of people with 56k who cant afford broadband.

People with 56k are now becoming a minority, not a majority though. Even the poll Here shows that there are as many people here with 56k as there are with higher.

I for one would prefer quality to smaller file size.

size matters. i cant tell you how long i have waited to be in a minority. will the daily mail hate me now?

[Sidders]

Just try it and you will notice the difference. If you want to compress, you should use Real Media, but they you will only be able to play it in RealOne.

I would but I've not got a jack lead, and I'm not going to buy one just to try it.

All this aside though, why should quality matter, especially for clips where it's just Chris talking. They certainly don't need to be in stereo for a start.

[Dickie]

They cost about 1 or 2 quid.

Leave the clip making process alone, i;ve tried other qualities but the difference is noticable, if it wasn't don't you think i'd change it if we have bigger fle sizes for no reason.