MP3Tunes.com

[filkertom]

No Digital Rights Management, unlimited downloads, cheap prices, lots of indy music? Sign me up.

Actually, this lets me ask a very important question: On the downloads from Tom Smith Online, is 128 Kbps working for people? I chose that bit rate, rather than 160 or 192, because of the quality-to-file-size ratio -- I still get lots of traffic from people on dial-up (and I've got something good for you folks coming as well, regarding navigation). Is the sound quality good enough? Do you folks on broadband want better quality? I'm really curious about this.

Comments

[kender42.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those "audiophiles" that claim/can hear the difference between 128 and 192. I'd actually suggest having "free" downloads be done at 128, and the ones you pay for be at 192 at least. 192 is a cleaner sound, IMHO, and reflects the CD quality better than 128.

Just my $0.025333 (inflation, ya know)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

For the record, so to speak, I can hear the difference, no question... but I hear it as a subtle difference in the ambience. More details do spring out, but not nearly as many to me as at higher (and rather file-size-prohibitive) bit rates.

And bumping it up to 192 would increase the file size by about 2/3, so a 3 MB file goes to 5 MB, which is why it's important for dial-up....

The "free" downloads will stay at 128 Kbps or lower (I'm still amazed at how good something as low asw 44 Kbps can sound, if it's set up right...).

[aiela.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the stuff I've downloaded from you, but upon inspection, it appears I'm ripping all my stuff at 128 also, so that's probably why it sounds just fine to me. I have no idea how someone who is used to having it at 192 would feel about it, but it seems fine to me.

[popefelix.livejournal.com]

You should do Ogg. Or maybe FLAC. :)

In all seriousness, I don't hear a terrible lack of quality (sound, anyway. Content, however... *g* just kidding.) in the MP3s we have stored on hlynna's box, which is pretty damn near all of them you've put out. I can't say that I've noticed a difference between your 128k MP3s and the 256k MP3s, or the Oggs, that we've ripped from your CDs. (and now we have a tape deck, which means MP3s of "Who Let Him In Here?". :) )

[jss]

I'd prefer 192, but I'm on broadband. It also depends on the original recording method; some of the live-at-concert stuff won't sound any better at 192 than at 128, for example (I'm thinking "Live at GAFilk" here, as well as any ripped-from-analog-tape older stuff).

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that distinction. You're absolutely right -- studio stuff will be much cleaner at the source.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Some of the recordings I purchased have background noise and tape hiss. This is due to the venue of the recordings and the original tapes. Going to 160Kbps would be of no use for those recordings.

Recordings which have wide dynamics or a great deal of high frequencies (cymbals) sound better at 160Kbps or better. None of the vocal/guitar/yamaha keyboard music you create will sound notably better if encoded at higher bitrates, however. You know what they say about being unable to get better than the source recording - that still holds true with MP3 encoding. Myself, I encode my CDs at 160Kbps, but those are CDs and I have to listen very hard to hear the differences between 128 and 160.

You could always experiment by putting two copies of the same song (your best quality tune, presumably) on the site and note which one of them gets more downloads.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Might not be a bad idea. You should be aware that I'm using some pretty high-definition audio loops these days, up to 24-bit (with the dichotomy that, as they're live recordings of real musicians, there's sometimes background noise :) -- and the MIDI is done with the raw signal from my badass Korg X5DR, which is indeed influenced some by bit-rate.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

The higher bitrate, the better for me. Which is why I'd rather buy CDs when available than download MP3s.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

192 is what I typically use for my rips for "carry-around" CDs. And with broadband, I would vote for having the option, at least. But then, I have no objection to OGG, SHN, FLAC, or APE, either. Lossless available? Hell, yeah!

*****

BTW, see what you did? :-)

Wow! The response to the Launch of MP3tunes has been overwhelming, and is giving even our robust Data Center and fat pipe a run for the money. We ask for your patience with the performance of the site during our Grand Opening. Also, we will temporarily disable the Search functionality from time to time during this peak traffic period.
Thanks for understanding! – MP3tunes

[thingunderthest.livejournal.com]

128 works for me, as I can always rip the CDs. Of course if the download is a version that isn't avilable on CD I world like a higher bitrate, but I'll be happy with whatever i can get on the free downloads.

[naja-pallida.livejournal.com]

What about a variable bitrate mp3? I don't know of software off hand that makes them, but it increases the bitrate in the areas of the music that would benefit from it, and drops it off for the areas that it would probably make little difference. I'm not sure on the file size either... but just thought I'd toss it out there.

[jalapenoman.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I just buy the CDs. I listen to them in the car when driving, and I haven't replaced the factory CD player with one that can do mp3s....
Of course, I enjoy the concerts more, but I can't take filkers home with me... *grin*

128kbps works for me

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

TO answer the question: I find 128 kpbs to be fine quality for the downloads. I purchase all the CDs so if I want something of higher than that, I can always make my own rip (for personal use!)

Wayne