192 kbps

[andreh]

Quote:Quote:As far as broadjam goes, I've been encoding at 256 or 320, from the original wav files in iTunes and then submitting it. Broadjam's system has been encoding it down to 192 as it uploads. Personally I'd rather use the WAV file as my source for all encoding (like doing multiple MP3's). It seems that there would be more loss going from WAV to 320 and then from that to 192 than there would be going directly from WAV to 192. That may not hold up to scientific scrutiny but it seems like that would be the case.Your stuff still sounds good. I agree with Dave...you'll get better sound if you go right from .wav to 192k rather than stopping at 256 or 320 first.I also agree with him that your stuff sounds great!Andre

[mazz]

Thanks for the kind words and the advice. WAV to 192 it is from here on out.John

[hephaluemp]

Quote:Quote:Here's a good article about it, with even email correspondence with the developer.http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mul ... 2.htmlLots of tests.It looks like it tries to expand any transients in the music, the article compares it to the Waves TransX plugin.Hepha LuempSounds like marketing BS to me. I suppose it could make things sound subjectively "better," but it certainly won't make any music closer to what the original artist/mixer/mastering engineer envisioned.If I heard a song that sounded better with this software applied, that tells me the mix needed help in the first place....and that's where I'd go to fix the problem.AndreAndre, you didn't read the article, did you? Hehe! The way you're quoting it looks kind of like both I and the article endorses the whole thing, which none of us does...Hepha Luemp

[amos]

www.musicmatch.com , Musicmatch Jukebox seems to work for me.You have a lot of control converting your wav files into mp3's.It's a big download but it's free. It also tends to want to be your one and only media playing device, which sucks. But, once again, it's free.

[andreh]

Quote:Quote:Sounds like marketing BS to me. I suppose it could make things sound subjectively "better," but it certainly won't make any music closer to what the original artist/mixer/mastering engineer envisioned.If I heard a song that sounded better with this software applied, that tells me the mix needed help in the first place....and that's where I'd go to fix the problem.AndreAndre, you didn't read the article, did you? Hehe! The way you're quoting it looks kind of like both I and the article endorses the whole thing, which none of us does...Hepha LuempHi Heph-I was referring to the technology being marketing BS, not you or the article...sorry it sounded like I was calling you out! I did read the entire article, and its author is certainly not in favor of the way Creative is labeling and marketing their technique.Andre

[kouly]

Quote: As far as broad jam goes, I've been encoding at 256 or 320, from the original wav files in iTunes and then submitting it. Broadjam's system has been encoding it down to 192 as it uploads. ?I may be wrong as I have only one song up on Broad jam so far but when I put it up forsale, Broad jam asked me to make sure the upload was at least 192. I did not get that they were doing anything to the file. They just wanted to make sure that I uploaded at least that quality if I was going to sell it. This is just a guess, but I would think that theywould do nothing to the file and would not compress it more. I would say if you uploaded a 320 then it would stay a 320. Also don't they offer a service for making mp3s but you have to send them a CD and I thought that they charged for this service. If they did it to uploads this would make this service redundant. Please correct me on any of this if I am wrong.