Featured Sponsor Listings

what bitrate do you encode your music in?

Dec 28, 2003 at 6:53 AM Post #46 of 61
At the risk of getting flamed, I use WMA (for home use anyway).

Some of my library is WMA Lossless, the remainder is WMA VBR at the highest quality setting which yields files that are anywhere from about 250 kbps to 410 kbps.

For portable use, I use Lame APS or APE

PS - I use WMA because I love the jpeg files you get upon ripping with WMP9 and all the associated information on the artist.
 
Dec 29, 2003 at 2:26 AM Post #48 of 61
i listen almost exclusviely to classical now -

eac, secure mode. offset corrected.

for lame 3.93:
1 instrument - alt preset extreme
>1 instrument - alt preset insane

smily_headphones1.gif
 
Dec 29, 2003 at 2:52 AM Post #49 of 61
Quote:

Originally posted by HD-5000
Tried WMA, but I hated it because it didn't tag my CD's right, unlike CDDB.


What didn't it do correctly? I haven't had any problems yet, but is there something specific I should watch out for?

I've actually had a problem with FLAC tags not getting converted properly over to mp3 format when I used dbpoweramp. It was a compilation though, perhaps that was the problem.
 
Dec 29, 2003 at 9:09 AM Post #51 of 61
Quote:

Originally posted by amol
I usually encode with my personalized settings with Razorlame , i mean use all those specific commands that can be used with EAC. I do 192-320 Kbps LAME 3.93.1 100% quality VBR with the highest quality settings for critical quality mp3s, or do 160 kbps CBR Itunes Fraunhoffer for casual qualty mp3s. Although i find 160 CBR FHG quite good too.


amol,

you might want to note that alt presets are tweaked not only for better encoding speed but also for better quality. encoding something with a cutoff of 20500hz and 320 cbr is NOT going to get me an mp3 of the same quality as an alt preset insane even though the parameters are the same. iirc i read somewhere that the actual algorithms used in alt preset insane are different from those that would be used in my example above. the same applies for a vbr. alt preset extreme is going to be better and faster encoded than a 192-320kbps 19500hz cutoff vbr.
 
Dec 29, 2003 at 10:05 AM Post #52 of 61
how about OptimFROG DualStream? I might switch to this format to save disk space.. using q5 it's about a half of conventional lossless file..

http://losslessaudiocompression.com/
 
Dec 29, 2003 at 5:11 PM Post #53 of 61
EAC -- (Razor)LAME v 3.92

for iHP-395T:
VBR, ~150 average

for computer HDD, Archos Studio 20 and its unknown follower:
CBR (min. 192 kbps), mostly 256 or 320 kbps

peacesign.gif
 
Dec 30, 2003 at 6:44 PM Post #55 of 61
I, like Zemo and philodox, use EAC/LAME/APS, and am part of UberNet. Once again... it is an excellent place to be.

Quote:

Originally posted by philodox
zemo... yeah, ubernet is great, I havent been on for a while because there is a problem with my setup
frown.gif


for some reason I can download from others fine, but when someone downloads from me the connection speed slowly drops to 0b/s...

cyberghost... you can share .ogg's on soulseek (www.slsk.org)

they have pretty good quality stuff there as well, although no actual requirement like there is with ubernet

[I encode at uber specs, EAC/LAME/APS]


philodox, I have experienced similar problems with my uploading dropping to 0 b/s. Are you possibly using BCDC++? I heard that there are known bugs that do not correctly display the connection rate, timeleft, etc. You may want to try to upgrade your DC client or try a different one and see how it goes. As for me, I occasionally get the same problem, but it does not affect ALL my uploads, only some. I'm using BCDC++.
 
Dec 30, 2003 at 6:53 PM Post #56 of 61
Quote:

Originally posted by slunk007
philodox, I have experienced similar problems with my uploading dropping to 0 b/s. Are you possibly using BCDC++? I heard that there are known bugs that do not correctly display the connection rate, timeleft, etc. You may want to try to upgrade your DC client or try a different one and see how it goes. As for me, I occasionally get the same problem, but it does not affect ALL my uploads, only some. I'm using BCDC++.


It does seem to affect all uploads... I'm using the current version of BCDC++... not sure how far back I should go version wise... could I get away with using DC++, or would I loose functionality there?

/me is missing his ubernet
frown.gif
 
Dec 30, 2003 at 8:01 PM Post #57 of 61
Watchdog:

I had used WMA9 to encode some of my old classical CD's and many of them were named incorrectly. Very annoying. Anyway, it really depends on what you listen to. If you stick with more "mainstream" recordings I would expect it to turn out fine.

BTW I use LAME to encode at 256kbs.
 
Dec 30, 2003 at 8:42 PM Post #58 of 61
Quote:

Originally posted by philodox
It does seem to affect all uploads... I'm using the current version of BCDC++... not sure how far back I should go version wise... could I get away with using DC++, or would I loose functionality there?

/me is missing his ubernet
frown.gif


Try DC++ or just regular DC. There are other DC clients out there too. As for functionality, I'm not sure what functionality you would be missing, really. As long as you can upload/download at a decent pace, things should be okay. Granted, if I had a choice between DC, DC++, and BCDC++... I'd pick BCDC++, but take what you can get.

Go on ubernet and do a search for DC++ I know there are people who share a bunch of different apps on there as well (even though that is technically against the uber-rules
rolleyes.gif
). If all else fails, ask the mods. They will be glad to help you out.

Good luck!
 
Jan 1, 2004 at 11:06 AM Post #59 of 61
As it just so happens, I AM a mod on ubernet!

DC is bloated, but works best for a few people.

DC++ is a LOT better than DC (less buggy, more random features)

BCDC++ is a little better than DC++ (has a couple extra features, the big one being bandwidth limiting. Also has a few random other features that most people don't care about.)

As BCDC++ seems to be more in active development than DC++, it tends to be a wee bit buggier, but I've never had problems with it. Try it for yourself! Also, a lot of people make the simple mistake of not having their correct IP address in the correct settings box if their trying to groove active mode. check that, and if you have a dynimic IP, you'll need to fix that everytime you connect to ubernet.

If you don't wanna groove DC, DC++, or BCDC++, google for another direct connect client, there are quite a few out there! But my personal favorite is BCDC++
 
Jan 2, 2004 at 4:33 PM Post #60 of 61
Quote:

Originally posted by Zemo
As it just so happens, I AM a mod on ubernet!

DC is bloated, but works best for a few people.

DC++ is a LOT better than DC (less buggy, more random features)

BCDC++ is a little better than DC++ (has a couple extra features, the big one being bandwidth limiting. Also has a few random other features that most people don't care about.)

As BCDC++ seems to be more in active development than DC++, it tends to be a wee bit buggier, but I've never had problems with it. Try it for yourself! Also, a lot of people make the simple mistake of not having their correct IP address in the correct settings box if their trying to groove active mode. check that, and if you have a dynimic IP, you'll need to fix that everytime you connect to ubernet.

If you don't wanna groove DC, DC++, or BCDC++, google for another direct connect client, there are quite a few out there! But my personal favorite is BCDC++


Well there you have it. Thanks for the info.

End of Thread Hijacking. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top