Posted by PROGANDPOP_CDS on 11/28/05 23:01

192 even 160 is a good bitrate with a very low distorsion at 160 !!!
256 Is very good but strong to download for those with short range ADSL
vetween 512 & 1024 Kb .
The best ratio for a MP3 is 192 Kbps, fast to download
with good definition about 14,2 % the Weight of the Wave file.
Progandpop_cds



> > 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!
> >
> > As a listener, can you tell the difference in encoding quality at
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any advice!
> >
> > Lastly, if you would like to join my "spam list", email me with the
> > words "SPAM ME" in the subject. I am hoping to launch officially on or
> > before 12/18/05, but I will probably be announcing only on
> > rec.music.progressive, which is most appropriate for my current focus
> > musically.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > David Oskardmay
>
> You can find the answers to your more technical questions at
> hydrogenaudio.org and I see someone has already suggested that so I'm
> just agreeing.
>
> As a listener, I can tell the difference between encodings under maybe
> 192kbps.
>
> I recommend that you offer shoppers a choice. Something like 128kbps vs
> VBR (Alt Preset Standard) vs Lossless. The nice thing here is you can
> charge less for the 128kbps version and more for the lossless version.
> After all, you're potentially paying more in bandwidth costs when they
> choose the higher-quality choices so why not charge them a little more
> for the quality?
>
> - NRen2k5

[Back to original message]