On 12/02/07, Richard L. Hess wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I have also found clearly audible differences between different
[log in to unmask]