[joe-frank-list] Yet another format discussion

suricata.suricatta suricatta at rcn.com
Tue Jun 10 19:35:37 PDT 2003

>>Horribleness is not a function of MP3 encoding, _per se_.

It absolutely is.

>>Many of the JF MP3s in circulation were ripped from cassette and
>>encoded poorly.  The format itself is not to blame.

There is nothing inherently wrong with ripping from cassette. The poor quality recordings were not suffering from tape hiss or any other obvious cassette induced analog problem. They were clearly suffering from "digititis". Anyone who has ever listened to very low bitrate compressed voice recordiings will probably know what I mean. Just before speech starts to become completely  unintelligible, a robotic effect occurs. Transcoding is likely to produce a similar effect. I suspect that the worst MP3 files were a result of transcoding from a real audio stream to a relatively low bitrate MP3.

Also, if you could describe an effective method of "encoding poorly" I would be grateful. Although I can use both Lame and Fraunhofer MP3 encoders to encode at virtually any bitrate, I don't currently know of any method, short of writing my own encoder, to "badly" encode an MP3 file.

>>Hmmm, takes about 90% less time to burn the same number of shows,
>>uses 90% less plastic, costs a lot less to mail?  Shall I go on?

While I suppose it does take less time to burn a CD-R, I do not believe that the plastic costs or mailing costs would change in any significant way. CD-Rs can often be purchased at 10 cents or less per disc, especially in large quanitities. Have we even established that he is using CD-Rs and not sending out pressed CDs? The weight and size difference between 1 CD and 10 CDs is negligable, although, admittedly the weight and size of the jewel cases does certainly increase. He charges extra for shipping in any case, so it is not likely that it is included in his pricing calculations.

More information about the joe-frank-list mailing list