Hi adiblol, > And recently I listened to some track on YT. It was > only 96kbps but sounded better than some YT uploads tagged HD with > 192kbps. Probably the band uploaded it in good quality, unlike unaware > people uploading mp3 to youtube...
A mastering engineer told me that to save money, some record labels use automated batch conversion services to prepare tracks for online distribution in the different formats that the various music stores require. Because the encodings are automated, no-one auditions them before they are released. > If I understand correctly, LossyWAV uses dithering and reducing bit > depth so it only increases noise floor I don't see the point of that; FLAC is already established as the better-than-lossy standard. Why would you want less than 16 bits for distribution when the 30-year-old CD format can do better? > Some perceptual codecs bear transcoding better that others. MP2 and > Musepack (which is based on MP2) are examples. I understand that many radio stations still use MP2, and it is the basis for DAB in Britain. > If your source file has high bitrate (such as MP3 320 or Vorbis q>8), > probably nothing bad will happen when transcoding it to another lossy > format. There's no need to take that risk, though - like you say, storage is cheap. > Self-appointed audio conversion expert (haha) ;) Is there a club I can join? :-) Cheers! Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Savonet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users
