Why is there no 144kbps?

[Gomar]

Why is there no 144kbps? It's incremented by 16, but jumps from 128 to 160 by 32. Only 2 rippers have 144kbps. One of them gave me an error.
Also, it took much longer to convert from flac to mp3 than from wav. CDex, when set to rip to compressed file, creates a WAV first, then mp3 from it. Makes sense, as it saves time. However, if I were to rip to flac first, I'd have to then change the encoder to mp3.

Thus, ripping to flac is a waste of time, not much space is saved as HDDs and DVDs are cheap.

[osprey4]

Are you using EAC? If not, what are you using?

[Gomar]

right in my post... CDex.I prefer 160 to 128, but if 144 were available, I'd use it. Seems 128 is the lowest setting to get decent quality sound.

[bigBonehead]

Thus, ripping to flac is a waste of time, not much space is saved as HDDs and DVDs are cheap.

.flac uses lossless compression, its quality is the same as on a CD. MP3 uses lossy compression, so the quality will be worse even at 320Kbps.

So, why are you looking for 144Kbps? if you are trying to save space on a portable player, then I recommend a VBR conversion with the low set to 128Kbps and the high set to 320kbps and a Q setting of around 2 or 3...

Otherwise, .flac is much better sonically IMO

[ChoaticWhisper]

Audacity using the lame encoder will do 144 kbps BUT will only export 144 kbps at 24000Hz.
Heres a few numbers

Kbps - Hz - Enc Time - File Size
144kbps-24000Hz-28 secs-3.45MB

128kbps-44000Hz-27 secs-3.07MB

160kbps-44000Hz-27 secs-3.84MB

Btw it was mp3-mp3 conversion
So I doesn't make sense to me.

[osprey4]

Seems 128 is the lowest setting to get decent quality sound.

Actually, a lot lower than what most people consider decent quality.