Today, the Internet is needed in every home no less than water or electricity. And in every city there are a lot of companies or small firms that can provide people with access to the Internet.

The user can choose any package for using the Internet from a maximum of 100 Mbps to a low speed, for example, 512 kbps. How to choose the right speed and the right Internet provider for yourself?

Of course, the Internet speed must be chosen based on what you do online and how much you are willing to pay per month for Internet access. From my own experience, I want to say that the speed of 15 Mbps suits me quite well as a person who works on the network. Working on the Internet, I have 2 browsers enabled, and each has 20-30 tabs open, while problems arise more from the computer side (for working with large quantity need a lot of tabs random access memory and a powerful processor) than in terms of Internet speed. The only moment when you have to wait a bit is the moment the browser is first launched, when all tabs are loaded at the same time, but usually it takes no more than a minute.

1. What do internet speed values ​​mean

Many users confuse Internet speed values ​​​​thinking that 15Mb / s is 15 megabytes per second. In fact, 15Mb / s is 15 megabits per second, which is 8 times less than megabytes and at the output we will get about 2 megabytes of download speed for files and pages. If you usually download movies for viewing with a size of 1500 Mb, then at a speed of 15 Mbps the movie will be downloaded in 12-13 minutes.

We watch a lot or a little of your Internet speed

• The speed is 512 kbps 512 / 8 = 64 kbps (this speed is not enough to watch online video);
• The speed is 4 Mbps 4 / 8 = 0.5 MB / s or 512 kB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 480p);
• The speed is 6 Mbps 6 / 8 = 0.75 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 720p);
• The speed is 16 Mbps 16 / 8 = 2 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 2K);
• The speed is 30 Mbps 30 / 8 = 3.75 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 4K);
• The speed is 60 Mbps 60 / 8 = 7.5 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in any quality);
• The speed is 70 Mbps 60 / 8 = 8.75 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in any quality);
• The speed is 100 Mbps 100 / 8 = 12.5 MB / s (this speed is enough to watch online video in any quality).

Many connecting the Internet are worried about the possibility of watching online video, let's see what kind of traffic movies with different quality need.

2. Internet speed required to watch online video

And here you will find out a lot or a little of your speed for watching online videos with different quality formats.

We see that all the most popular formats are reproduced without problems with an Internet speed of 15 Mbps. But to watch video in 2160p (4K) format, you need at least 50-60 Mbps. but there is one BUT. I don’t think that many servers will be able to distribute video of this quality while maintaining such a speed, so if you connect the Internet at 100 Mbps, you won’t be able to watch online video in 4K.

3. Internet speed for online games

Connecting home Internet, every gamer wants to be 100% sure that their Internet speed will be enough to play their favorite game. But as it turns out, online games are not at all demanding on the speed of the Internet. Consider what speed popular online games require:

1. DOTA 2 - 512 kbps
2. World of Warcraft - 512 kbps
3. GTA online - 512 kbps.
4. World of Tanks (WoT) - 256-512 kbps.
5. Panzar - 512 kbps
6. Counter Strike - 256-512 kbps

Important! The quality of your game online is more dependent not on the speed of the Internet, but on the quality of the channel itself. For example, if you (or your provider) receive Internet via satellite, then no matter what package you use, the ping in the game will be much higher than that of a wired channel with a lower speed.

4. Why do you need Internet more than 30 Mbps.

In exceptional cases, I might recommend using a faster connection of 50 Mbps or more. Not many people will be able to provide such a speed in full, the company "Internet to Home" is not the first year on this market and it inspires confidence, the more important is the stability of the connection, and I want to believe that they are on top here. A high Internet connection speed may be necessary when working with large amounts of data (downloading and uploading them from the network). Perhaps you are a fan of watching movies in excellent quality, or you download large games every day, or upload videos or work files of large volumes to the Internet. You can use various methods to check the connection speed. online services, and to optimize the work you need to perform .

By the way, speeds of 3 Mbps and below usually make surfing the net a little unpleasant, not all online video sites work well, and downloading files is generally not happy.

Be that as it may, there are plenty to choose from in the Internet services market today. Sometimes, in addition to global providers, the Internet is offered by local firms, and often the level of their service is also on top. The cost of services in such firms is, of course, much lower than that of large companies, but as a rule, the coverage of such firms is very small, usually within a district or two.

Today, the Internet is needed in every home no less than water or electricity. And in every city there are a lot of companies or small firms that can provide people with access to the Internet.

The user can choose any package for using the Internet from a maximum of 100 Mbps to a low speed, for example, 512 kbps. How to choose the right speed and the right Internet provider for yourself?

Of course, the Internet speed must be chosen based on what you do online and how much you are willing to pay per month for Internet access. From my own experience, I want to say that the speed of 15 Mbps suits me quite well as a person who works on the network. Working on the Internet, I have 2 browsers turned on, and each has 20-30 tabs open, while problems arise more from the computer side (to work with a large number of tabs, you need a lot of RAM and a powerful processor) than from the Internet speed. The only moment when you have to wait a little is the moment when the browser is first launched, when all the tabs are loaded at the same time, but usually it takes no more than a minute.

1. What do internet speed values ​​mean

Many users confuse Internet speed values ​​​​thinking that 15Mb / s is 15 megabytes per second. In fact, 15Mb / s is 15 megabits per second, which is 8 times less than megabytes, and at the output we will get about 2 megabytes of download speed for files and pages. If you usually download movies for viewing with a size of 1500 Mb, then at a speed of 15 Mbps the movie will be downloaded in 12-13 minutes.

We watch a lot or a little of your Internet speed

• The speed is 512 kbps 512 / 8 = 64 kbps(this speed is not enough for watching online video);
• The speed is 4 Mbps 4 / 8 = 0.5 MB/s or 512 kB/s(this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 480p);
• The speed is 6 Mbps 6 / 8 = 0.75 Mbps(this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 720p);
• The speed is 16 Mbps 16 / 8 = 2 Mbps(this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 2K);
• The speed is 30 Mbps 30 / 8 = 3.75 Mbps(this speed is enough to watch online video in quality up to 4K);
• The speed is 60 Mbps 60 / 8 = 7.5 Mbps
• The speed is 70 Mbps 60 / 8 = 8.75 Mbps(this speed is enough to watch online video in any quality);
• The speed is 100 Mbps 100 / 8 = 12.5 Mbps(this speed is enough to watch online video in any quality).

Many connecting the Internet are worried about the possibility of watching online video, let's see what kind of traffic movies with different quality need.

2. Internet speed required to watch online video

And here you will find out a lot or a little of your speed for watching online videos with different quality formats.

We see that all the most popular formats are reproduced without problems with an Internet speed of 15 Mbps. But to watch video in 2160p (4K) format, you need at least 50-60 Mbps. but there is one BUT. I don’t think that many servers will be able to distribute video of this quality while maintaining such a speed, so if you connect the Internet at 100 Mbps, you can never watch online video in 4K.

3. Internet speed for online games

When connecting home Internet, every gamer wants to be 100% sure that his Internet speed will be enough to play his favorite game. But as it turns out, online games are not at all demanding on the speed of the Internet. Consider what speed popular online games require:

1. DOTA 2 - 512 kbps
2. World of Warcraft - 512 kbps
3. GTA online - 512 kbps.
4. World of Tanks (WoT) - 256-512 kbps.
5. Panzar - 512 kbps
6. Counter Strike - 256-512 kbps

Important! The quality of your game online is more dependent not on the speed of the Internet, but on the quality of the channel itself. For example, if you (or your provider) receive Internet via satellite, then no matter what package you use, the ping in the game will be much higher than that of a wired channel with a lower speed.

4. Why do you need Internet more than 30 Mbps.

In exceptional cases, I might recommend using a faster connection of 50 Mbps or more. Not many providers in Kyiv will be able to provide such a speed in full, Kyivstar is not the first year on this market and it inspires confidence, the more important is the stability of the connection, and I want to believe that they are on top here. A high Internet connection speed may be necessary when working with large amounts of data (downloading and uploading them from the network). Perhaps you are a fan of watching movies in excellent quality, or you download large games every day, or upload videos or work files of large volumes to the Internet. To check the connection speed, you can use various online services, and to optimize the work you need to run.

By the way, speeds of 3 Mbps and below usually make surfing the net a little unpleasant, not all online video sites work well, and downloading files is generally not happy.

Be that as it may, there are plenty to choose from in the Internet services market today. Sometimes, in addition to global providers, the Internet is offered by local firms, and often the level of their service is also on top. I am served exactly in this small firm. The cost of services in such firms is of course much lower than that of large companies, but as a rule, the coverage of such firms is quite insignificant, usually within a district or two.

Pros and cons MP3 128 kbps

Compressing audio data is tricky. Nothing can be said in advance ... The most common format today - MPEG Layer3 with a stream of 128 kbps - provides quality that at first glance does not differ from the original. It is called lightly - "CD-quality". However, almost everyone knows that many people turn up their noses at such "CD quality". What is wrong? Why is this quality not enough? Highly complex issue. I myself am against 128 kb compression, because the result sometimes turns out to be stupid. But I have a number of 128 kb records that I can hardly find fault with. Whether stream 128 is suitable for encoding this or that material - it turns out, unfortunately, only after listening to the result multiple times. I can’t say anything in advance - I personally don’t know the signs that would allow me to determine in advance the success of the result. But often stream 128 is completely enough for high-quality music encoding.

For 128 kbps encoding, it is best to use Fraunhofer MP3 Producer 2.1 or later products. Except for MP3enc 3.0, it has an annoying bug that results in very poor encoding of high frequencies. Versions above 3.0 do not suffer from this shortcoming.

First of all, some general words. The perception of the sound picture by a person depends very much on the symmetrical transmission of the two channels (stereo). Different distortions in different channels are much worse than the same ones. Generally speaking, ensuring as much as possible the same sound characteristics in both channels, but in the meantime different material (otherwise what kind of stereo is it) is a big problem in sound recording, which is usually underestimated. If we can use 64 kbps for mono encoding, then 64 kbps per channel is not enough for stereo encoding in the mode of just two channels - the stereo result will sound much more incorrect than each channel separately. Most Fraunhofer products generally limit mono to 64 kbps - and I have not yet seen a mono recording (clean recording - no noise or distortion) that would require a higher stream. For some reason, our addictions to monophonic sound are for some reason much weaker than to stereophonic - apparently, we just don’t take it seriously :) - from a psychoacoustic point of view, it is just a sound coming from a speaker, and not an attempt to completely transmit some kind of paintings.

Trying to transmit stereo signals puts forward much more stringent requirements - after all, have you ever heard of a psychoacoustic model that takes into account the masking of one channel by another? Also, some reverse, let's say, effects are ignored - for example, a certain stereo effect that is designed for both channels at once. A single left channel masks its part of the effect in itself - we will not hear it. But the presence of the right channel - the second part of the effect - changes our perception of the left channel: we subconsciously expect to hear more left side effect, and this change in our psychoacoustics also needs to be taken into account. With low compression - 128 kbps per channel (total 256 kbps), these effects disappear, since each channel is presented quite fully to cover the need for transmission symmetry with a margin, but for streams of about 64 kbps per channel, this is a big problem - the transfer of subtle nuances of joint the perception of both channels requires a more accurate transmission than is currently possible in such streams.

It was possible, of course, to make a full-fledged acoustic model for two channels, but the industry took a different path, which is generally equivalent to this, but much simpler. Many algorithms with common name Joint Stereo is a partial solution to the above problems. Most of the algorithms come down to highlighting the center channel and the difference channel - mid/side stereo. The central channel carries the main audio information and is a regular mono channel formed from two original channels, while the difference channel carries the rest of the information that allows you to restore the original stereo sound. By itself, this operation is completely reversible - it's just a different way of representing the two channels, which is easier to work with when compressing stereo information.

Next, the central and differential channels are usually compressed separately, using the fact that the differential channel in real music is relatively poor - both channels have a lot in common. The balance of compression in favor of the center and differential channel is selected on the fly, but in general a much larger flow is allocated to the center channel. Complex algorithms decide what is preferable for us at the moment - a more correct spatial picture or the transmission quality of information common to both channels, or simply compression without mid / side stereo - that is, in dual channel mode.

Oddly enough, but stereo compression is the weakest point of the compression result in Layer3 128 kbps. It is impossible to criticize the creators of the format - this is still the lesser possible evil. Subtle stereo information is almost not perceived consciously (if we do not take into account obvious things - the rough arrangement of instruments in space, artificial effects, etc.), so the stereo quality is the last thing a person evaluates. Usually, something always prevents you from getting to this: computer speakers, for example, introduce much more significant flaws, and it simply does not reach such subtleties as incorrect transmission of spatial information.

You should not think that what prevents you from hearing this shortcoming on computer acoustics is that the speakers are spaced at a distance of 1 meter, on the sides of the monitor, without creating a sufficient stereo base. That's not even the point. you will never be able to isolate the exact spatial arrangement of sounds (this is not a sound picture, which, on the contrary, computer speakers will never build, but a direct, conscious, perception of the difference between channels). Computer speakers (in standard use) or headphones provide a much clearer direct stereo experience than conventional music speakers.

To put it bluntly, for direct, informative and cognitive perception of sound, we do not really need accurate stereo information. It is quite difficult to directly detect the difference in this aspect between the original and Layer3 128 kbps, although it is possible. Need or great experience, or enhancing effects of interest. The simplest thing that can be done is to virtually spread the channels further than is physically possible. Usually this effect is included in a cheap computer technology button "3D Sound". Or in boom boxes, the speakers of which do not separate from the body of the device and are spaced too weakly to transmit beautiful stereo in a natural way. There is a transition of spatial information into the specific audio information of both channels - the difference between the channels increases.

I applied a stronger effect than usual to hear the difference better. See how it should sound after encoding at 256 kbps with a dual channel (256_channels_wide.mp3 , 172 kB), and how it sounds after encoding at 128 kbps with joint stereo (128_channels_wide.mp3 , 172 kB).

Retreat. Both of these files are 256 kbps mp3s encoded with mp3 Producer 2.1. Don't get confused: I, firstly, test mp3, and secondly, I post the results of testing mp3 to mp3 ;). It was like this: first I encoded a piece of music in 128 and 256. Then I decompressed these files, applied processing (stereo expander), compressed in 256 - just to save space - and posted it here.

By the way, only at 256 kbps in mp3 Producer 2.1 does joint stereo turn off and dual channels turn on - two independent channels. Even 192 kbps in Producer 2.1 is some kind of joint stereo, because my examples were very incorrectly compressed into less than 256 kbps stream. This is the main reason that "full" quality starts at 256 kbps - historically, any lower stream in standard commercial products from Fraunhofer (before 98) is joint stereo, which is in any case unacceptable for a completely correct transmission. Other (or later) products, in principle, allow you to arbitrarily choose - joint stereo or dual channel - for any stream.

About results

In the original (which in this case corresponds exactly to 256 kbps), we heard the sound with the difference channel amplified and the center channel weakened. The reverberation of the voice was very well heard, as well as all kinds of artificial reverberations and echoes in general - these spatial effects go mainly to the difference channel. To be specific, in this case there were 33% of the central channel and 300% of the difference. The absolute effect - 0% of the central channel - is turned on on equipment such as musical centers with a button like "karaoke vocal fader", "voice cancelation / remove" or similar, the meaning of which is to remove the voice from the phonogram. The meaning of the operation is that the voice is usually recorded only on the central channel - the same presence in the left and right channels. By removing the center channel, we remove the voice (and a lot more, so this feature is pretty useless in real life). If you have such a thing - you can listen to your mp3s with it yourself - you get a funny joint stereo detector.

In this example, we can already indirectly understand what we have lost. Firstly, all spatial effects became noticeably worse - they were simply lost. But secondly, gurgling is the result of the transition of spatial information into sound. What did it correspond to in space - yes, just all the time almost randomly moving sound components, some kind of "spatial noise" that was not in the original phonogram (it withstands at least a complete transition of spatial information into sound without the appearance of extraneous effects). It is known that this type of distortion when encoding to low streams often appears directly, without any additional processing. It’s just that direct sound distortions (which are almost always absent) are perceived consciously and immediately, while stereophonic ones (which are always present in joint stereo and in in large numbers) - only subconsciously and in the process of listening for some time.

This is the main reason why Layer3 128 kbps sound is not considered full CD quality. The fact is that turning a stereo sound into mono in itself gives strong negative effects - often the same sound is repeated in different channels with a slight delay, which, when mixed, simply gives a sound that is blurred in time. Mono sound made from stereo sounds much worse than the original mono recording. The difference channel, in addition to the central (mixed mono) channel, gives a complete reverse separation into right and left, but the partial absence of the difference channel (insufficient encoding) brings not only an insufficient spatial picture, but also these unpleasant effects of mixing stereo sound into one mono channel.

When all other obstacles are removed - the equipment is good, the tonal coloring and dynamics are unchanged (there is enough flow to encode the center channel) - it will still remain. But there are phonograms recorded in such a way that the negative effects of compression based on mid / side stereo do not appear - and then 128 kbps gives the same full quality as 256 kbps. A special case is a phonogram, perhaps rich in stereo information, but poor in sound information - for example, slow piano playing. In this case, for encoding the differential channel, a stream is allocated that is quite sufficient to transmit accurate spatial information. There are also more difficult to explain cases - an active arrangement filled with a variety of instruments, nevertheless, sounds very good at 128 kbps - but this is rare, maybe in one case out of five to ten. However, it does occur.

Actually to the sound. It is difficult to isolate the immediate defects in the sound of the center channel in Layer3 128 kbps. The lack of transmission of frequencies above 16 kHz (by the way, they are very rare, but still transmitted) and a certain decrease in the amplitude of very high ones - strictly speaking in itself - is just nonsense. A person in a few minutes completely gets used to not such tonal distortions, it simply cannot be considered strong negative factors. Yes, these are distortions, but for perception " full quality"- far from secondary. From the side of the central, directly sound, trouble of a different kind is possible - a sharp restriction of the available stream for encoding this channel, caused simply by a combination of circumstances - very abundant spatial information, a moment loaded with various sounds, frequent inefficient short blocks and, as a result of everything this is a completely used up stream buffer.This happens, but relatively rarely, and then - if such a fact occurs, it is usually noticeable on large fragments continuously.

It is very difficult to show defects of this kind in an explicit form so that anyone can notice. They are easily noticed even without processing by a person who is used to dealing with sound, but for an ordinary non-critical listener, this may seem like a completely indistinguishable sound from the original and some kind of abstract digging into something that is not really there .. Still, look at the example. To extract it, it was necessary to apply strong processing - to reduce the content of medium and high frequencies very much after decoding. By removing these frequency nuances that interfere with hearing, we, of course, disrupt the operation of the coding model, but this will help to better understand what we are losing. So - how should it sound (256_bass.mp3 , 172 kB), and what happens after decoding and processing a 128 kbps stream (128_bass.mp3 , 172 kB). Note a noticeable loss of bass continuity, smoothness, and some other anomalies. The transmission of low frequencies in this case was sacrificed in favor of higher frequencies and spatial information.

It should be noted that the operation of the acoustic compression model can be observed (with careful study and with some experience with sound) at 256 kbps, if a more or less strong equalizer is applied. If you do this and then listen, you can sometimes (quite often) notice unpleasant effects (ringing / gurgling). More importantly, the sound after such a procedure will have an unpleasant, uneven character, which is very difficult to notice immediately, but it will be noticeable with prolonged listening. The only difference between 128 and 256 is that in a 128 kbps stream, these effects often exist without any processing. They are also difficult to notice right away, but they are there - the bass example gives some idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhere to look for them. It is simply impossible to hear this in high streams (above 256 kbps) without processing. This problem does not apply to high streams, but there is something that sometimes (very rarely) does not allow even Layer3 to be counted - 256 kbps of the original - these are time parameters (more details will be in a separate article later: see MPEG Layer3 - 256 / link to another article/).

There are phonograms that are not affected by this problem. The easiest way is to list the factors that, on the contrary, lead to the appearance of the above distortions. If none of them is done, there is a great chance for a completely successful, in this aspect, encoding in Layer3 - 128 kbps. It all depends, however, on the specific material...

First of all - noise, let's say, hardware. If the phonogram is noticeably noisy, it is very undesirable to encode it into small streams, since too much of the stream is used to encode unnecessary information, which, moreover, is not very amenable to reasonable coding using an acoustic model.

• Just noise - all sorts of extraneous sounds. The monotonous noise of the city, street, restaurant, etc., against which the main action takes place. These types of sounds provide a very rich stream of information that needs to be encoded, and the algorithm will have to sacrifice something in the base material.
• Unnatural strong stereo effects. This is rather related to the previous point, but in any case, too much of the stream goes to the differential channel, and the coding of the central channel is greatly degraded.
• Strong phase distortion, different for different channels. In principle, this refers more to the shortcomings of the currently common coding algorithms than to the standard, but still. The wildest distortions begin due to the complete disruption of the entire process. In most cases, recording on cassette equipment and subsequent digitization leads to such distortions of the original phonogram, especially when played by inexpensive tape recorders with poor-quality reverse. The heads are crooked, the tape is wound obliquely, and the channels are slightly delayed one relative to the other.
• It's just too overloaded. Quite roughly speaking - a large symphony orchestra plays all at once :). Usually, as a result of compression at 128 kbps, something very schematic is obtained - chamber, brass, drums, soloist. It occurs, of course, not only in the classics.

The other pole is something that usually compresses well:

• A solo instrument with a relatively simple sound - guitar, piano. The violin, for example, has an overly full spectrum and usually doesn't sound very good. The work itself actually depends on the violinist's violin. Several instruments are also usually compressed quite well - bards or CSP, for example (instrument + voice).
• High-quality modern production of music. I mean not the musical quality, but the quality of the sound - mixing, arrangement of instruments, the categorical absence of complex global effects, decorating sounds and, in general, anything superfluous. In this category, for example, all modern pop music easily falls, as well as some rock, and in general quite a lot of everything.
• Aggressive, "electric" music. Well, to somehow give an example - early Metallica (and modern, in general, too). [remember, this is not about musical styles! just an example.]

It is worth noting that Layer3 compression is almost unimpressed by parameters such as the presence / absence of high frequencies, bass, dull / sonorous coloring, etc. There is a dependence, but it is so weak that it can be ignored.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), the matter rests on the person himself. Many people, without preparation and prior selection, hear the difference between streams of about 128 kbps and the original, while many do not hear even synthetic extreme examples as differences. The former do not need to be convinced of anything, while the latter cannot be convinced by such examples ... One could simply say that there is a difference for some, and not for others, if not for one thing: in the process of listening to music, over time, our perception time is improving. What seemed like a good quality yesterday may not seem so tomorrow - it always happens. And if it is rather pointless (at least in my opinion) to compress at 320 kbps compared to 256 kbps - the gain is no longer very important, although it is understandable, then storing music at least at 256 kbps is still worth it.

tweet

plus

First, let's try to figure out what bits and bytes are. A bit is the smallest unit of measure for the amount of information. Along with a bit, a byte is actively used. A byte is 8 bits. Let's try to visualize this in the following diagram.

I think everything is clear with this and it makes no sense to dwell in more detail. Since bits and bytes are very small values, they are mainly used with the prefixes kilo, mega and giga. You've probably heard about them since high school. We have combined the generally accepted units and their abbreviations into a table.

Now let's try to determine the values ​​​​of measuring the speed of the Internet connection.

In plain language, connection speed is the amount of information received or sent by your computer per unit of time. In this case, it is customary to consider a second as a unit of time, and a kilo or megabit as the amount of information.

Thus, if your speed is 128 Kbps, this means that your connection has throughput 128 kilobits per second or 16 kilobytes per second.

Much or little is up to you to judge. In order to more materially feel your speed, I recommend using our tests. Determine the time it takes to download a file, the size you defined, at your connection speed. Also you can see how much file you can download for a certain period of time at your connection speed.

Using our tests, you need to remember and take into account that our server, on which all these tests are actually located, is far enough from your computer and, accordingly, the results can be affected by the workload of our server (on our site during peak hours, we simultaneously measure the connection speed of more than 1000 people), as well as the congestion of Internet lines.