Chuck Israels wrote:
David,
Yes, I can hear a small difference. I know because I expected (before
reading carefully) to hear the more compressed file first and noticed a
slight veiling in the second sample.
That said, I don't think it makes a whit of practical difference in
demonstrating the arrangement to those who may eventually play it.
I say, use smaller files in this instance. This from one who favors
good sound (and the unfortunately large file sizes that go with that)
for actual recordings.
Hope this helps you.
Chuck
On the other hand, the difference between the files is 2MB. Which would
be very significant were the 128 file something like 100KB and the 192
file 2,100KB. But with even the 128 file being too large to send as an
e-mail attachment for many (most?) servers, the file size won't make
that much difference, so I'd go with the larger one since it sounds better.
I would hate to have a client think that if I were satisfied with a
lesser-quality sound, would I also be satisfied with a lesser-quality
engraving final product?
For demo purposes to convince someone to buy the music I don't think it
would really matter either way, nor as a practice recording to provide a
guide for interpretation would it matter either way.
But the file size even for the 128 file is already too large to be sent
any way other than by uploading/downloading from a web-site, and if that
were the case, broadband users would notice no difference and dial-up
users would be just as stymied by a 5MB file as by a 7MB file.
If it's to be posted on a web-site, possibly posting 2 files: the 192
file and one encoded at an even lower rate so that dial-up users could
select which one they wanted to download.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
