|
|
Posted by Steven Sullivan on 11/28/05 18:45
In rec.music.progressive david <tri_image@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am starting an online label for high quality mp3 downloads and was
> wondering what "real people" think about some questions I have. The
> main question is: what quality settings should I use for encoding?
> I'm using 'lame' as my encoder and have been looking at the presets
> available. As my aim is to offer music with the best available audio
> quality, I have been using the "insane" preset, which theoretically
> goes up to 320 kbps. One CD I encoded--about 1 hr in length--came in
> at around 138 MB, so a little more than twice the size of what seems to
> be the de facto standard. If you are familiar with lame you're
> probably wondering which version I have, and unfortunately it's on my
> other computer, sorry. 2.something. Also, I have had trouble with the
> tagging functionality--couldn't get it to parse the command line
> correctly in either the bash or dos shell. So.. any general tips are
> appreciated. Just surfing around, I noticed a front-end called
> Razorlame. Is it any good? Anyway, time for a poll!
See www.hydrogenaudio.org, and look for the thread on recommended
LAME settings.
> As a listener, can you tell the difference in encoding quality at
> different bitrates and other settings?
See www.hydrogenaudio.org, and look for threads on comparisons of
different bitrates and other settings.
> Would you be more or less likely to purchase an album at 138 MB vs. 60
> MB, assuming the larger file would have noticeably better audio?
> What would you like to see in an online distributor that is not already
> being addressed by the major players?
I wouldn't buy either of them. I'd buy a lossless FLAC version, which will
be larger than both of those. Then I can make my own lossy compressed
versions as needed.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|