NWZ-S615F properties outside of device limits??

[fdoraine]

I download mp3 files from Sermon Audio. They seem to download fine, but when I drag them to my Walkman NWZ-S615F, I get a pop-up telling me that "one or more properties outside of device limits..." My Sony won't play them. What gives??

[CrowdAds]

[dr. zoidberg]

Does it actually appear on the player then?

[JK98]

I am curious about this. What bitrate are they? Some recording of speeches and sermons on the net are at 16 kbps. If the files are at 16 kbps, then you might need to convert them to 32 kbps for them to play on the player. Sony players mention supporting bitrates of 32 kbps and up.
if it isn't the bitrate, then perhaps the files might be at an unusual sampling rate? Are they mp3 or wma? What bitrate? What sampling rate?

[fdoraine]

Thanks. The bit rate was the problem. They were 16k. When I converted them to 32k or 48k they play fine. I found a shareware called 4musics mp3 bitrate converter. It works great.

Thanks again for your help.

[JK98]

Thank you. I was curious about whether the Sony players would play 16 kbps mp3 files. Some manufacturers say support down to 32 kbps mp3 , but 16 kbps files do play fine on some of them. There is no benefit to converting your 16 kbps files to 48kbps. They won't sound better, just take up more space. The 32 kbps files you make from your 16 kbps files won't sound better than the 16 kbps, but at least they will play on the Sony players. This seems silly though. Why doesn't Sony provide support down to 16kbps? Why must people bother converting the files to 32 kbps, then have them take up double the space on the player?

[frimframsauce]

thats an odd bitrate. most podcasts these days are 64kbps at least.

heh

[JK98]

Originally Posted by frimframsauce

thats an odd bitrate. most podcasts these days are 64kbps at least.

heh

Imo that is not correct. Most mp3 spoken word podcasts are between 16 and 32 kbps mono, with 32 kbps being the most common. 64 kbps or higher bitrates are probably used more for music than spoken word files.

[frimframsauce]

hm odd, maybe its just the ones i download. russel brand/jonathan ross...npr stuff, this american life, leo laporte the tech guy, some stuff from deutch welle, kermode etc. all at least 64kbps.

[JK98]

Originally Posted by frimframsauce

hm odd, maybe its just the ones i download. russel brand/jonathan ross...npr stuff, this american life, leo laporte the tech guy, some stuff from deutch welle, kermode etc. all at least 64kbps.

I would think they would be more careful about using more bandwidth than necessary. This website advises using 24 kbps for spoken word files.

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creati...iobitrate.html

I have listened to many spoken word mp3 files at 16, 24, and 32 kbps. Files at 16 kbps mp3 sound good if the original recordings are good. This is especially true if the speaker is male, since female voices are higher in frequency than male voices, and with a low bitrate high frequencies are diminished. At 8 kbps the sound quality is unacceptable though, and many artifacts may be present. Files at 24 kbps and 32 kbps do sound a bit better than 16 kbps, especially if the speaker is female. I see no reason to use 64 kbps though. I cound understand using a bitrate of 32 kbps for spoken word files as 32 kbps aren't that much larger than 24 kbps, and 32 kbps mp3 files will be compatible with the vast majority of mp3 players. There are three main reasons to use the lowest acceptable bitrate. First of all, many users still use dialup to connect to the net. A one hour lecture might take half an hour for them to download at 16 kbps, but 2 hours to download at 64 kbps. This is a huge difference. A file at 64 kbps takes up 4x the space on a portable player as a 16 kbps one. The third reason is that using 16 kbps will only use 1/4 of the bandwidth for the website than using 64 kbps. I could see valid reasons for using 16, 24, or 32 kbps mp3 files, but no valid reasons for using more than 32 kbps mono mp3 for spoken word files.

[frimframsauce]

i dunno, i can tell the difference. mp3 isn't a codec that was made for such low bitrates, others like he-aac or mp3 pro or wma do better with ultra low bitrate. mp3 starts to fall apart when you get that low. yea you can restrict the frequency band but i think it starts to sound more like a bad telephone call instead of a radio show if you do that. diggnation apparently puts out full 128kbps stereo. those low bitrates aren't optimal, they are what you can get away with and still be understandable.
anyways, bandwidth grows cheaper every year, many of the concerns on that site i think only applied several years ago, now its not so relevant when even flash players have gigs and gigs for cheap.

so what 32kbps podcasts are out there?
these are all 64kbps
this week in tech
this american like
dw spectrum
russel brand
pri world tech podcast
pri studio 360
on the media
npr bryand park project
npr technology podcast
npr pop culture podcast
npr fresh air
npr cartalk
dw newslink plus
dw money talks
mark kermode film reviews
dw living planet
leo laporte the tech guy
jonathan ross
dw inside europe
diggnation
apm marketplace
dw eurovox

[frimframsauce]

ok i found this one http://cc.christian-podcasts.com/
32kbps, it sounds pretty bad.

i couldn't even imagine trying this time stretch trick with that low bitrate file
http://thoughtrush.com/blog/2008/03/...d-other-audio/
i use that foobar soundtouch dsp to time stretch many podcasts, clarity matters esp if you speed things up. but even at regular speed the higher bitrate is much more pleasant to listen to. its a different experience when you are listening to a story like on this american life and such, since audio is everything in radio stories.

[JK98]

WOR 710 radio in NYC uses 32 kbps. Many of the websites I use to download religious lectures from use 32 kbps.

[frimframsauce]

i guess i can understand why, bandwidth still does cost something. smaller religious sites don't have the resources of big media companies. still, i find low bitrate grating.

[JK98]

Originally Posted by frimframsauce

i guess i can understand why, bandwidth still does cost something. smaller religious sites don't have the resources of big media companies. still, i find low bitrate grating.

I have noticed a trend away from 16 kbps and 24 kbps to 32 kbps for many religious sites. My opinion is that 32 kbps mono is the best overall compromise between sound quality, compatibility, file size, download time , etc. Spoken word files at a lower bitrate with a female speaker will sound worse than ones with a male speaker since female voices are at higher frequencies than male voices.
As for mp3 players having huge storage, there are still many people who have an older mp3 player that is under one gig, and others who have an mp3 player that is just one gig. These people who are interested in podcasts will want to have podcasts plus music on their player, so they will want the podcast files to be as small as is practical.

Even though bandwidth costs have dropped significantly, there is still no reason to waste it. Imo using a bitrate higher than 32 kbps mono mp3 for spoken word files is a wate of bandwidth. One thing to also keep in mind is to not play podcasts with an equalization that many might use for music with the bass boosted. I usually use flat equalization when playing spoken word files, however some might want to use equalization that decreases the bass and boosts the midrange and upper midrange.

I guess if someone is not used to listening to AM radio then they might not be comfortable with the sound quality at 32 kbps mp3. Those who listen to talk radio on AM probably won't mind the quality of spoken word files at 32 kbps mono mp3. The unfortunate thing is that since there are so many ipods out there and ipods don't support WMA, most websites are now reluctant to use WMA for spoken word files, even though WMA files at 32 kbps mono sound much better than mp3 files at 32 kbps mono.

[JK98]

Those recordings might have been low quality to start with. You could take some of the 64 kbps recordings you have and convert copies of them them to 32 kbps mono. Imo they will probably sound better than the 32 kbps you didn't like, even though the files went through a second compression and were additionally decreased in quality because of that.

[frimframsauce]

well probably, the example site is probably not very good at doing the whole podcast thing. that being said, 32kbps is low regardless, mp3 just wasn't meant to work well at such low bitrates, aac-he or mp3 pro or wma are the ones that can manage better at super low bitrates without sounding horrific. but i really don't think this issue is one that will last for long. bandwidth and storage just keep getting faster and larger at a rate where this stuff will be forgotten pretty soon. its not that i cant understand what is being said at 32kbps, its just i'd rather not have to tolerate the lower quality if at all possible.

i just don't think people with 1gb mp3 players are something broadcasters should worry about. it would be like youtube worrying their videos don't play to 56k users. mp3 players on the low end are cheap these days. 40-50 bucks gets you 2gb creative stone. its 2008, web audio should sound at least decent

[JK98]

Originally Posted by frimframsauce

i just don't think people with 1gb mp3 players are something broadcasters should worry about. it would be like youtube worrying their videos don't play to 56k users. mp3 players on the low end are cheap these days. 40-50 bucks gets you 2gb creative stone. its 2008, web audio should sound at least decent

That may be true mostly for commercial sites that target those with high speed connections, however religious sites tend to work on very low budgets(many work on contributions only), and also want their content to be conveniently playable on very low priced mp3 players. Many are appealing to people who don't have an mp3 player yet, or who aren't into listening to music. Some of the sites even recommend mp3 players that are under $40 or under $30.