bitrate

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Bigfred, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Bigfred

    Bigfred Guest

    I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some advice
    on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it be
    better to rip them higher.

    Thanks
    Bigfred, Feb 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 128 wouldn't suffice for me as I hear higher and lower hertz than most
    other folks. I use 320, but I can hear distortion when other people can't.
    I like Bose speakers as they give the clearest quality of reproduction.
    I can't listen to anything else. Am about to spring for some Bose computer
    speakers.

    My best friend's neice runs a music studio in Nashville. I may make a trip
    to Nashville this summer and check things out. She possibly could put me
    to work because of my astute hearing. Most albums are mixed horribly and
    I know I could do better than some of these producers with tin ears, but
    then again, she could tell me to go jump in the lake. I haven't been behind
    a mixing board in a loooong time...;o)

    "Bigfred" <> chiseled in stone, the following words
    news:pE9%b.1359$:

    > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some
    > advice on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128
    > would it be better to rip them higher.
    >
    > Thanks


    --
    @}-}-------Rosee http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk18.htm
    www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Feb 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bigfred

    br1ght Guest

    Depends on what your doing with the results. You *may*
    want to go up to 160-192 if you're an audiophile and
    listening them thru $3000 grand worth of equipment.
    However, if you're not wanting concert sound (something
    that ain't go'na happen since the original is vinyl),
    128 is more than adequate. I am now burning my disks
    80kBit MP3Pro format and can't hear the difference...
    I'm not using $3Gs worth though

    --
    br1ght
    _____________________________
    "Bigfred" <> wrote in message
    news:pE9%b.1359$..
    ..
    > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I

    would like some advice
    > on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two

    records at 128 would it be
    > better to rip them higher.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >
    br1ght, Feb 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Bigfred

    Mike245 Guest

    Bigfred wrote:

    > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some advice
    > on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it be
    > better to rip them higher.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >

    I find that a great majority of people I've asked tend to find 192 to be
    a good compromise on disk space and sound quality.

    Personally, I like to do a variable bitrate between 192 and 320. The
    files are slightly bigger but have a much nicer quality to them.

    --
    Mike
    Block Banner Ads Now
    http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html
    Mike245, Feb 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Bigfred

    Mara Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:17:15 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:

    >128 wouldn't suffice for me as I hear higher and lower hertz than most
    >other folks. I use 320, but I can hear distortion when other people can't.
    >I like Bose speakers as they give the clearest quality of reproduction.
    >I can't listen to anything else. Am about to spring for some Bose computer
    >speakers.


    Hmmm. I rip at 320 too, for just that reason. Always have. :)

    "Isn't _that_ interesting."

    >
    >My best friend's neice runs a music studio in Nashville. I may make a trip
    >to Nashville this summer and check things out. She possibly could put me
    >to work because of my astute hearing. Most albums are mixed horribly and
    >I know I could do better than some of these producers with tin ears, but
    >then again, she could tell me to go jump in the lake. I haven't been behind
    >a mixing board in a loooong time...;o)


    Go for it.

    "And bring back some tapes. <g>"

    >
    >"Bigfred" <> chiseled in stone, the following words
    >news:pE9%b.1359$:
    >
    >> I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some
    >> advice on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128
    >> would it be better to rip them higher.
    >>
    >> Thanks


    --
    What we need are a couple of good hangings.
    -- FTC Chairman Orson Swindle, on email spam
    Mara, Feb 26, 2004
    #5
  6. At the risk of upsetting audiophiles. Yes you can hear 60 kHz.. if it is of
    high enough amplitude and mixed with an equally high amplitude signal of,
    say, 56kHz. So the starting point of any ripping process should be to make
    sure that you have band-pass filters that stop everything over, say, 25kHz
    and don't let any frequencies higher than that get to the sampler.

    The minimum rate for the sampler must be more than twice the frequency of
    the highest component in the signal being sampled. So, if your band-pass
    filter has a cut-off at 25kHz, then you should be sampling at, at least
    50kBit/s. In practice, the filter may be, say, only 3dB down at 25kHz so
    there will still be components higher than this, so you need to increase the
    sampling rate accordingly. If you have a really good cut-off, then 50kBit/s
    will do. The worse the slope of the filter, the higher the sample rate you
    will need.

    So, a 128kBit/sec sample rate will be fine with a really good filter. Rather
    than up the sample rate, it would be better to invest in a higher quality
    filter as all your recordings will be the same quality only with smaller
    file sizes. If you have a less-good filter, then "over-sampling" will
    minimise the distortion produced by frequencies above 25kHz interfering with
    other frequencies and producing audible sub-harmonics.

    Now this gets very emotive and I am sure that some will disagree, strongly,
    with what I am saying. But to my mind the starting point of any audio system
    is a really good, low noise, input stage. And the starting point to any
    sampling system is a really good bandpass filter..














    "Mara" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:17:15 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >
    > >128 wouldn't suffice for me as I hear higher and lower hertz than most
    > >other folks. I use 320, but I can hear distortion when other people

    can't.
    > >I like Bose speakers as they give the clearest quality of reproduction.
    > >I can't listen to anything else. Am about to spring for some Bose

    computer
    > >speakers.

    >
    > Hmmm. I rip at 320 too, for just that reason. Always have. :)
    >
    > "Isn't _that_ interesting."
    >
    > >
    > >My best friend's neice runs a music studio in Nashville. I may make a

    trip
    > >to Nashville this summer and check things out. She possibly could put me
    > >to work because of my astute hearing. Most albums are mixed horribly and
    > >I know I could do better than some of these producers with tin ears, but
    > >then again, she could tell me to go jump in the lake. I haven't been

    behind
    > >a mixing board in a loooong time...;o)

    >
    > Go for it.
    >
    > "And bring back some tapes. <g>"
    >
    > >
    > >"Bigfred" <> chiseled in stone, the following words
    > >news:pE9%b.1359$:
    > >
    > >> I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some
    > >> advice on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128
    > >> would it be better to rip them higher.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks

    >
    > --
    > What we need are a couple of good hangings.
    > -- FTC Chairman Orson Swindle, on email spam
    eric the seal, Feb 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Oooooooo......scary.....;o)

    That IS very interesting. Did you tell me that before, 'cuz I don't
    remember if you did. But of course, I WAS on antihistimines for
    almost three weeks. <shudder>

    With Leslie<friend's neice>, we were just originally talking about
    computer work. One thing lead to another and somehow we were side
    tracked to my mixing capabilities, which are "woefully" out of date.

    Mara <> chiseled in stone, the following
    words news:p:

    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:17:15 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >>128 wouldn't suffice for me as I hear higher and lower hertz than most
    >>other folks. I use 320, but I can hear distortion when other people
    >>can't. I like Bose speakers as they give the clearest quality of
    >>reproduction. I can't listen to anything else. Am about to spring for
    >>some Bose computer speakers.


    > Hmmm. I rip at 320 too, for just that reason. Always have. :)
    >
    > "Isn't _that_ interesting."


    >>My best friend's neice runs a music studio in Nashville. I may make a
    >>trip to Nashville this summer and check things out. She possibly could
    >>put me to work because of my astute hearing. Most albums are mixed
    >>horribly and I know I could do better than some of these producers with
    >>tin ears, but then again, she could tell me to go jump in the lake. I
    >>haven't been behind a mixing board in a loooong time...;o)


    > Go for it.
    >
    > "And bring back some tapes. <g>"


    >>"Bigfred" chiseled in stone, the following words:
    >>> I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some
    >>> advice on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128
    >>> would it be better to rip them higher.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks


    --
    @}-}-------Rosee http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk18.htm
    www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Feb 26, 2004
    #7
  8. I understand what you are saying:

    http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html

    My ear specialist explained it to me like this:

    When I am hearing a single tone, say middle C or Bflat on some
    instruments, the tone is not really a single tone. It is actually more
    than one tone, a harmonic. At times, I hear the harmonic. And the
    distorion I hear is the harmonic doing a number on my eardrums, because
    the speaker or the mix or something the producer has missed is not being
    reproduced to mimic the actual harmonic.

    I can sing second and third part harmony, but never the first part. I
    blow. If I had've chosen to sing instead of the instruments I tried to
    master, I could have done better with the vocal chords. My teacher and
    mentor has always said, if you can't sing it, you can't play it. I had a
    wonderful time proving him wrong. Our band traveled frequently and we
    were invited to many contests and pre-game shows for the university up the
    road. My dream was to play Principle with the London Symphony, yes, I
    wrote the London Symphony. If I hadn't wanted to marry and have a family,
    I could have given it my best shot...;o) That ol' biological clock was
    a'tickin'. Dammit! and I couldn't ignore it for some dumb reason...;o/

    "eric the seal" <> chiseled in stone, the
    following words news::

    > At the risk of upsetting audiophiles. Yes you can hear 60 kHz.. if it is
    > of high enough amplitude and mixed with an equally high amplitude signal
    > of, say, 56kHz. So the starting point of any ripping process should be
    > to make sure that you have band-pass filters that stop everything over,
    > say, 25kHz and don't let any frequencies higher than that get to the
    > sampler.
    >
    > The minimum rate for the sampler must be more than twice the frequency
    > of the highest component in the signal being sampled. So, if your
    > band-pass filter has a cut-off at 25kHz, then you should be sampling at,
    > at least 50kBit/s. In practice, the filter may be, say, only 3dB down at
    > 25kHz so there will still be components higher than this, so you need to
    > increase the sampling rate accordingly. If you have a really good
    > cut-off, then 50kBit/s will do. The worse the slope of the filter, the
    > higher the sample rate you will need.
    >
    > So, a 128kBit/sec sample rate will be fine with a really good filter.
    > Rather than up the sample rate, it would be better to invest in a higher
    > quality filter as all your recordings will be the same quality only with
    > smaller file sizes. If you have a less-good filter, then "over-sampling"
    > will minimise the distortion produced by frequencies above 25kHz
    > interfering with other frequencies and producing audible sub-harmonics.
    >
    > Now this gets very emotive and I am sure that some will disagree,
    > strongly, with what I am saying. But to my mind the starting point of
    > any audio system is a really good, low noise, input stage. And the
    > starting point to any sampling system is a really good bandpass filter..


    <schnippen>

    --
    @}-}-------Rosee http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk18.htm
    www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Feb 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Bigfred

    Brian H¹© Guest

    @}-}-------Rosee said:

    > Oooooooo......scary.....;o)
    >


    (Snippety snip)

    <sticking oar in mode>

    Bose rocks, you can treat me to their sub-woofer system for my birthday if you
    like, I won't mark the box "return to sender".

    </sticking oar in mode>
    Brian H¹©, Feb 26, 2004
    #9
  10. Bigfred

    ]v[etaphoid Guest

    "Bigfred" <> wrote in message
    news:pE9%b.1359$...
    > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some

    advice
    > on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it

    be
    > better to rip them higher.
    >
    > Thanks


    As always, higher is better - and 192 is just about the defacto standard for
    all but the most hardened of audiophiles. That said, given your original
    medium is vinyl, you're unlikely to get a whole lot of benefit from the
    increase.

    So it all comes down to your intended usage. If your plan is just to archive
    them all on your harddrive, the extra file size isn't going to kill you and
    could be worth it for the slight increase in quality, especially if you're
    encoding and listening via decent hardware. If you are putting together a
    collection so you can take it on the road with you via an mp3 player or PDA,
    the 50% increase in file size will likely be an excessive price to pay for a
    difference in sound quality you will be unlikely to hear.

    Finally, consider VBR - variable bit rate encoding. It works by setting an
    average encoding rate, and then increases and decreases it dynamically as
    required by the complexity and range of the piece. It won't affect the size
    of the file too much (unless it's unusually complex or simple), but will
    result in more advanced compositions being recorded at a suitably higher
    rate at the expense of barer songs/sections where it is unlikely to be
    noticed or missed.

    That's my 2c.
    ]v[etaphoid, Feb 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Bigfred

    why? Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:50:28 -0000, Bigfred wrote:

    >I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some advice
    >on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it be
    >better to rip them higher.


    Check the figures used in the existing mp3 grops read the FAQs. Quite
    often it's 160 / 192 / 224.


    Newsgroups:
    alt.binaries.sounds.mp3,alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.reggae,alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz,alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.new-age
    Subject: "--> What Bitrate Should I Use? <-"
    Followup-To: alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.d
    Summary: Guidelines for the alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* newsgroups
    Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:34:26 GMT

    Let your ears be your guide. Start at 128 or 160 kps. If you get a
    good
    encode, you have a good encode. If the material has artifacts and
    requires
    more, then use a better encoder or a higher bitrate. You can share an
    entire CD at 160 kps without exceeding the posting cap (maybe even at
    192).
    At higher bitrates it is harder to keep your daily posting volume within
    reasonable limits.

    Remember that a high bitrate does not ensure a good encode, and encoding
    at
    a higher bitrate than necessary wastes server space. Examples of
    material
    that seldom (if ever) need a very high bitrate: older material (early
    Sixties and older), spoken comedy or other material with little or no
    musical content, or mono materal. Never reencode at a higher bitrate
    something that was already encoded at a low bitrate. You cannot improve
    an
    MP3 by decoding it and reencoding at a high bitrate. You can only make
    it
    worse.

    The point to uploading is so that people will download. Posting at too
    high
    a bitrate will prevent many people from downloading. They will not have
    the
    time or the bandwidth to try your posting before it expires off their
    server. If they really want the material, they will ask for endless
    reposts
    which wastes even more server space.

    So post at any bitrate you choose. Post at the bitrate that lets you
    and
    others enjoy the music. But, if you do encode at a high bitrate, please
    observe the 75 MB cap and split your post across two days. Remember
    that
    posting too much applies to volume, whether by flooding with too many
    CDs or
    flooding with just a few CDs at a bitrate much higher than the material
    needs in order to sound good.


    http://www.mp3-faq.org/


    Me
    why?, Feb 26, 2004
    #11
  12. Bigfred

    JWooden271 Guest

    I suggest that you take one of your LPs and rip it three times. Once
    at 128k, then 192k, then 64k. Then carefully listen to each mp3 and
    judge which bitrate is the best quality per megabyte.

    "Bigfred" <> wrote in message news:<PE9%b.1359$>...
    > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some advice
    > on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it be
    > better to rip them higher.
    >
    > Thanks
    JWooden271, Feb 26, 2004
    #12
  13. Bigfred

    Bigfred Guest

    Thanks everybody some really good advice, suffice to say I am now really
    clued up now, think I might plump for 192 as a compromise.
    Cheers.


    "JWooden271" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I suggest that you take one of your LPs and rip it three times. Once
    > at 128k, then 192k, then 64k. Then carefully listen to each mp3 and
    > judge which bitrate is the best quality per megabyte.
    >
    > "Bigfred" <> wrote in message

    news:<PE9%b.1359$>...
    > > I am currently ripping my vinyl records to MP3 but I would like some

    advice
    > > on what bitrate I should rip at. I have done two records at 128 would it

    be
    > > better to rip them higher.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    Bigfred, Feb 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Bigfred

    Mara Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:40:00 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:

    >Oooooooo......scary.....;o)
    >
    >That IS very interesting. Did you tell me that before, 'cuz I don't
    >remember if you did. But of course, I WAS on antihistimines for
    >almost three weeks. <shudder>


    I don't think so, but I can't remember. But I can't remember much of anything at
    the moment. As a last-ditch effort to control my pain until I can see the
    surgeon next month, the specialist has put me on Neurontin.

    The side effects have been horrendous. Constant vertigo, somnolence, vision
    disturbances, problems eating, the shakes, mind fog. But it does work for my
    foot - I worked today with no problems with my foot until it started to wear
    off, so I _must_ stay on it. But I can't see for shit, and can't keep my balance
    - I have to have something to hang on to or I can't get around. I have to type
    _very_ carefully because I have HUGE difficulties seeing my screen.

    Didn't stop me from working, though. Where there's a will, there's a way.

    >With Leslie<friend's neice>, we were just originally talking about
    >computer work. One thing lead to another and somehow we were side
    >tracked to my mixing capabilities, which are "woefully" out of date.


    If it's something that really interests you I'd go for it. You never know - you
    might have a new career in the making. :)

    >Mara <> chiseled in stone, the following
    >words news:p:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:17:15 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >>>128 wouldn't suffice for me as I hear higher and lower hertz than most
    >>>other folks. I use 320, but I can hear distortion when other people
    >>>can't. I like Bose speakers as they give the clearest quality of
    >>>reproduction. I can't listen to anything else. Am about to spring for
    >>>some Bose computer speakers.

    >
    >> Hmmm. I rip at 320 too, for just that reason. Always have. :)
    >>
    >> "Isn't _that_ interesting."


    <snip>
    --
    What we need are a couple of good hangings.
    -- FTC Chairman Orson Swindle, on email spam
    Mara, Feb 26, 2004
    #14
  15. <mumble><grumble> Stupid doctor.....

    Mara <> chiseled in stone, the following
    words news::

    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:40:00 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >>Oooooooo......scary.....;o)
    >>
    >>That IS very interesting. Did you tell me that before, 'cuz I don't
    >>remember if you did. But of course, I WAS on antihistimines for
    >>almost three weeks. <shudder>


    > I don't think so, but I can't remember. But I can't remember much of
    > anything at the moment. As a last-ditch effort to control my pain until
    > I can see the surgeon next month, the specialist has put me on
    > Neurontin.
    >
    > The side effects have been horrendous. Constant vertigo, somnolence,
    > vision disturbances, problems eating, the shakes, mind fog. But it does
    > work for my foot - I worked today with no problems with my foot until it
    > started to wear off, so I _must_ stay on it. But I can't see for shit,
    > and can't keep my balance - I have to have something to hang on to or I
    > can't get around. I have to type _very_ carefully because I have HUGE
    > difficulties seeing my screen.
    >
    > Didn't stop me from working, though. Where there's a will, there's a
    > way.


    >>With Leslie<friend's neice>, we were just originally talking about
    >>computer work. One thing lead to another and somehow we were side
    >>tracked to my mixing capabilities, which are "woefully" out of date.


    > If it's something that really interests you I'd go for it. You never
    > know - you might have a new career in the making. :)


    --
    @}-}-------Rosee http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk18.htm
    www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Feb 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Bigfred

    ICee Guest

    Mara wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:40:00 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >
    >> Oooooooo......scary.....;o)
    >>
    >> That IS very interesting. Did you tell me that before, 'cuz I don't
    >> remember if you did. But of course, I WAS on antihistimines for
    >> almost three weeks. <shudder>

    >
    > I don't think so, but I can't remember. But I can't remember much of
    > anything at the moment. As a last-ditch effort to control my pain
    > until I can see the surgeon next month, the specialist has put me on
    > Neurontin.
    >
    > The side effects have been horrendous. Constant vertigo, somnolence,
    > vision disturbances, problems eating, the shakes, mind fog. But it
    > does work for my foot - I worked today with no problems with my foot
    > until it started to wear off, so I _must_ stay on it. But I can't see
    > for shit, and can't keep my balance - I have to have something to
    > hang on to or I can't get around. I have to type _very_ carefully
    > because I have HUGE difficulties seeing my screen.

    <snip>

    Couldn't help responding to your mention of Neurontin, Mara. My wife
    has been on it for a few months now for neurpathic pain also, in fact
    the Doctor just upped the dose today. She has all the same side effects
    as you, and it sometimes seems they are almost worse than the pain.
    Like with you, though, it works, so she has to take it, otherwise the
    pain is unbearable.
    ICee, Feb 26, 2004
    #16
  17. I'm glad to see just ONE doctor that tries to treat pain effectively.
    This will never be a drug free society when folks are in pain. If doctors
    were allowed to treat pain effectively, whether it be physical or mental
    pain, there would be NADA drug problem!!!!

    "ICee" <> chiseled in stone, the following words
    news::
    <schnippen>
    > Couldn't help responding to your mention of Neurontin, Mara. My wife
    > has been on it for a few months now for neurpathic pain also, in fact
    > the Doctor just upped the dose today. She has all the same side effects
    > as you, and it sometimes seems they are almost worse than the pain.
    > Like with you, though, it works, so she has to take it, otherwise the
    > pain is unbearable.


    --
    @}-}-------Rosee http://www.southerncaucus.org/hk18.htm
    www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Feb 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Bigfred

    Mara Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:19:24 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:

    ><mumble><grumble> Stupid doctor.....


    He's better than the first one. At least he found the problem, and the drug does
    work, even if the side effects are as bad as the original problem. Maybe in time
    I'll get used to it and they won't affect me so badly.

    I hope. This is nasty stuff. But at work, even though I couldn't walk a straight
    line, I could walk. No white-hot ice picks through the foot, no burning,
    crawling, no spasms, not even a tingle, while the neurontin was working. After
    two years, that's a godsend.

    I can't eat worth a damn, though. Everything tastes like shit. And it's raised
    my blood pressure to the point where I'm having nose/sinus bleeds.

    "Are we having fun yet? <BIG sigh>"

    <snip>
    --
    What we need are a couple of good hangings.
    -- FTC Chairman Orson Swindle, on email spam
    Mara, Feb 27, 2004
    #18
  19. Bigfred

    ICee Guest

    @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    > I'm glad to see just ONE doctor that tries to treat pain effectively.
    > This will never be a drug free society when folks are in pain. If
    > doctors were allowed to treat pain effectively, whether it be
    > physical or mental pain, there would be NADA drug problem!!!!


    Couldn't agree more. Most (nearly all, actually) doctors are scared to
    death to treat pain aggressively and effectively.

    > "ICee" <> chiseled in stone, the following words
    > news::
    > <schnippen>
    >> Couldn't help responding to your mention of Neurontin, Mara. My wife
    >> has been on it for a few months now for neurpathic pain also, in fact
    >> the Doctor just upped the dose today. She has all the same side
    >> effects as you, and it sometimes seems they are almost worse than
    >> the pain. Like with you, though, it works, so she has to take it,
    >> otherwise the pain is unbearable.
    ICee, Feb 27, 2004
    #19
  20. Bigfred

    Flying Rat Guest

    Mara said this...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:19:24 -0600, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >
    > ><mumble><grumble> Stupid doctor.....

    >
    > He's better than the first one. At least he found the problem, and the drug does
    > work, even if the side effects are as bad as the original problem. Maybe in time
    > I'll get used to it and they won't affect me so badly.
    >
    > I hope. This is nasty stuff. But at work, even though I couldn't walk a straight
    > line, I could walk. No white-hot ice picks through the foot, no burning,
    > crawling, no spasms, not even a tingle, while the neurontin was working. After
    > two years, that's a godsend.
    >
    > I can't eat worth a damn, though. Everything tastes like shit. And it's raised
    > my blood pressure to the point where I'm having nose/sinus bleeds.
    >
    > "Are we having fun yet? <BIG sigh>"
    >
    > <snip>
    >

    have you tried amitriptyline yet?
    (think it's called Elavil in the US)

    FR
    --
    I thought that I heard you laughing

    www.flyingrat.net
    Flying Rat, Feb 27, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ABS

    bitrate for napster

    ABS, Sep 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    897
  2. Jay Stewart

    Re: Bitrate on Star Trek series DVDs

    Jay Stewart, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Jay Stewart
    Aug 12, 2003
  3. Anonymous Joe

    AC3 Stereo Encoding for DVD, bitrate?

    Anonymous Joe, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,085
    Anonymous Joe
    Jan 3, 2004
  4. Kaka

    Decent quality but low bitrate?

    Kaka, Aug 24, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    91
    Views:
    2,113
    Allan
    Sep 9, 2004
  5. dirtysalsa

    Decent Quality @ Low Bitrate

    dirtysalsa, Aug 25, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    461
    dirtysalsa
    Aug 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page