Music lover wants to share 20GB+ of HQ MP3's

M

mogley

New member
I have spent considerable time compiling a collection of MP3's from my own CD collection and other cd's borrowed from wherever I can find and used the highest quality mp3 encoders I know of (SoloH Mpeg v0.07a-veeerry slow but great sound) to obtain the best quality recordings to share with anyone willing to endure the extra time it usually takes to download 256Kbs files.

The problem I'm encountering is that since I'm somewhat of a newbie when it comes to Gnutella based P2P programs I need some suggestions on the best way to share these files. Also if anyone knows how to create some sort of txt file from my library so that I could post it and maybe e-mail specific requests. Hopefully that may be a little faster than what I've experienced so far using P2P.

Please I am not interested in anything in return and don't need any lectures on the virtues of piracy. Just some constructive advice. I want to be one of the good guys, not the *** that just take and never give back to the community. If you choose to reply by e-mail please no attachments or I will not receive it. Thanks
 
Use Linux to share and rotate the files day to day via a perl script so no one file is up for more than 24 hrs. Then leave your client on all the time and share about 2000 files at a time so you don't bog down your computer, and so you don't get busted by your spy-on-you ISP.
No need to create a file list, gnutella clients will do that for you, and people will find your files with no problems.
Thanks for sharing!
 
By the way,
If you rip a cd and encode it to 256Kbs the quality doesnt
get better. A audio cd is encoded with 128kbs and 44.000kz.
How could you possibly improve the quality if the cd hasnt that
quality?
 
What are you talking about? AudioCD is encoded with 44100Hz sample rate and 16bits per sample, with two separate channels. It means it uses 44100*2*2=172Kbytes per second. It's far from different world than 128Kbit per second mp3 file. And you can easily hear the difference between those two formats. If you wan't good quality mp3 files, 256kbps bitrate is required (which can offer audible CD quality). You can also use some optimized codecs which can give audible CD quality with lower bitrates by using VBR (variable bit rate) mode, for example LAME with --r3mix preset. But never ever encode mp3s with 128kbps bitrate, it is not CD quality!
 
Thanks for the reminder again of what some of this is all about.

Next time, don't forget to mention the number 1411 should be thought of instead of 128
A slight difference.
 
You are not wasting anything. You are using more space to record more information/music by using less compression. The compression factor should not be of greater importance than music quality unless you have specific reasons for achieving small files.
Rip a .wav file some time and compare it to 192 .mp3 rip of the same track and same CD. In between those sizes are some good codecs and techniques.
 
I have no idea. But the fact is that 128kbps is not a CD quality. I would suggest you to read more from r3mix website, it gives you a lot of information about the quality of MP3 compression.
 
You aren't wasting anything. When you rip a CD, you got a wav file which has 172 kilobytes per second data rate. It is five times more than hightest mp3 compression rate, 320 kilobits per second. Every time you compress wavs to mp3 form, you lose qualty. But if you use good codecs (for example Lame) and high enough bitrates, you won't be able to hear the difference between the original CD and compressed mp3 file.

If you wan't to have CD quality mp3 files, you need to use least 256kbps bitrate, or high quality VBR mode (which is able to lower the bitrate when the audio has higher compressiability, Lame with --r3mix preset is the best codec for this).
 
Back
Top