LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  February 2007

ARSCLIST February 2007

Subject:

Re: Listening Copy

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:18:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

Hello, Farris,

If you have 44.1/16 WAV files on a server already, and your listening 
"dumb terminal" can connect to that server over 100 Mb/s Ethernet, 
then there may be no need to go to the trouble of making MP3 files 
from the WAV files.

The WAV file is only running at 1.4 Mb/s, much less than the capacity 
of a 100 Mb/s of the Ethernet connection. I can run 44.1/16 WAV files 
reliably over a wireless 802.11g network (one file is all I've ever tested).

There is significant variability between MP3 encoders. When I run the 
one that comes with Samplitude (and I'm not sure which one it is any 
more, since I didn't have to execute a separate license as I did in 
the past) there is an option for highest quality that takes about 5x 
as long to encode as the lowest quality. The highest quality at 128 
kb/s and above (I like doing music at 192 kb/s) sounds very much like 
the original WAV files.

I recently received a 160 kb/s MP3 of a song to audition done by a 
recording engineer that sounded substantially worse than the 128 kb/s 
Windows Media file ripped by the artist for my convenience. When I 
finally got the CD, neither sounded as close as the MP3s I make. For 
larger projects, I usually batch convert MP3s overnight as I cannot 
take the time during the work day to run them.

I was totally amazed at the difference in quality between various 
lossy encoders and don't want to repeat the experiment with the song 
noted above.

Cheers,

Richard

At 11:03 AM 2007-02-12, Farris Wahbeh wrote (in part):

>After all this critical and great feedback, I don't see why we shouldn't
>offer researchers and patrons MP3 files for listening purposes
>only.Thesefiles would be accessible via a media player available on a
>computer or MP3
>player in-house only, eliminating copyright infringement issues as we would
>be using these for educational purposes only and not distributing in any
>way.
>
>For now, I'm still thinking of using a lossy format, since the originals are
>flat unprocessed transfer WAV files. WAV files are backed up, and listening
>formats can be changed easily in-house.
>

Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager