Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by djberg96 (2603) on 2002.02.20 8:51 (#4795) Journal
    Have you tried Ogg (or Ogg Vorbis or Vorbis, or whatever it is they're supposed to be called). I've not tried it myself, but from what I've read, you'll get better quality with Ogg.

    Also, what bitrate are you encoding at? I usually do 192 at a minimum.

    • Like I said, I haven't had chance to re-encode any of this stuff yet. I'm going to have a go with "Lark's Tongues" when I get a spare moment though - the current recording is MP3@128Kbps, which is pretty much as low as you can go quality wise. And IIRC I did it with Bladenc.
      • Re:Ogg? (Score:2, Informative)

        I use iTunes/SoundJam which uses the FhG stuff, and I find that 160 kbps virtually eliminates artifacts (if I turn off the "smart" frequency and encoder adjustments). But on the occasional track that doesn't sound good at 160, 192 is just fine. I've never heard an encoder that does well with lots of cymbals or jangling guitars etc. at 128 kbps.