Grunkk

While I found a satisfactory reply from Timaeus222 (thanks for clarifying minor differences in jargon between bit and frame rate), I am disappointed that the administrator djpretzel chose to be so flagrantly patronizing. And I won't stoop to his level by bolding that. Putting his ego aside, I'm sincerely sorry to hear that you think there is enough of a difference to justify doubling and quadrupling the size of your files. Naturally, 128kbps isn't the exact limit of the human ear; it varies somewhat so I can sort of see why 160kbps could contain some info (though how much value that has is negligible), but certainly not 192 or 320, no matter how much awesomesauce he puts in his coffee. Sure, you can see it on your software, and possibly hear something if really trying hard, but how meaningful is the difference? Is it twice the quality? I think not.

Is there a reason why you don't impose a cap on the framerate permitted for your music? The human ear isn't capable of distinguishing sounds much higher than 128kbps (not to mention higher ones have considerably inflated filesizes). I have spent a great deal of time downloading some nice songs here, but every single one has had a greater framerate than justified. While I have gotten in the habit of editing these songs for personal use, removing undesirable elements, sometimes adding my own, and truncating framerate on the way, not all people are inclined or know to do this.As a matter of fact, inflated files are absolutely everywhere, like a sweeping tide of inefficiency called forth in the name of planned hardware obsolescence (though most of the time it's just not knowing better). I'm sure in today's age size consolidation does not matter so much, but back in the day it was a pleasant skill to practice, and was good form. If you wish to test this, feel free, but I am under the impression you knew this and have some other reason for not doing it. Would it really hurt the uploaders' feelings so much? Thanks in advance for your thoughts,