Okay, since I am taking so many great files, I figure I would give some tips on how to clean them up a bit fast and easy.
1) Get Wavepad. It's free audio editing software, and it's fairly easy to use.
2) It can decode RA, but I suggest you have the files as WAVs or MP3s.
3) Open said file...it'll immediately start playing. From here, you can judge how noisy (in the bad way, not the "girl screaming her lungs out" way.)
4) Only use this if the audio is really noisy: Go to "Effects"
5) Then "High Bypass Filter"
6) From "Presets" select "Radio / Telephone quality Audio" I know that doesn't make much sense, but trust me on this...
7) Use this either alone or after steps 4-6. Go to "Effects" again, and select "Noise Reduction"
8 ) Go to presets, and select "Remove Hum/Hiss"
If the audio isn't vastly improved then, your files may be a lost cause. However, I have used this method on many files, and just about every one of them has turned out a lot easier to listen to.
Now, if anyone has a British wife who talks NASTY who wants to send me some files, I'm all ears....
How to clean up those sound files
-
mjj9994
- Knight
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: 20 Dec 2005 23:06
- x 160
Nice post! Now thats what I call a dummies for audio tutorial. Thanks!! I am greatly appreciative as I know lotsa hardware stuff but about nil as far as audio software goes (always seems too complicated/too much time involved)... but the way you laid it out... think even the laziest monkey can do it!!
Thanks again,
The lazy Monkey
Thanks again,
The lazy Monkey
-
El Ciego
- Kingpin
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 09 Oct 2006 06:36
- x 1
Other tactics
I don't like the method described above, because I don't want to lose that much frequency range, and filtering the sound to sound like a radio/telephone will eat a lot of the higher frequency sounds, some of which (reverberations, etc.) are desireable.
Here's another way, and you don't need WavePad software (although you'll need some sort of audio mixing/processing software:
1. Record/transfer the original audio file into .WAV format on your computer. This preserves all the characteristics of the original recording.
2. UseEQ to null out the most aggravating frequencies.
3. Selectively find and cut large silent gaps in the recording. Edit out loud, invasive sounds (unless they have something to do with your desired content). I would rather lose 30 seconds of love sounds from a 3 minute recording than to have obnoxious sounds superimposed over the moaning female.
4. If all else fails, plan to use your treated sound file for making mashes, audio collages and the like.
I did this with a recording of two young neighbors getting it on. Although the "cleaned" version sounded artificial, it was suitable to include with music, other sounds etc. in a mash.
i have an acceptable recording of some neighbors screwing, but unfortunately they were listening to Alanis Morrisette as they made love. I wanted her gasps and orgasmic cries, so here's what I did:
a.) I lowered the volume to the point where only her cries etc. peaked above -18 dB.
b.) I used a Noise Gate setting to grab only the peaks, then
c.) I brought the volume back up (normalizing).
Like I said, the result sounded artificial, but Alanis' vocals were almost completely removed after I did this. The resulting track has become a favorite ingredient for mixes and sound collages.
The single biggest thing to remember is this: Control the noise levels as much as you can while making the original recording. Of course, many things will be beyond your control, but do what you can to minimize noise. Don't handle the microphone(s) after starting to record. Place the mics in a location away from wind if recording outdoors. Place the microphones on the "quiet" side of a building if possible. Use directional microphones when possible. Mount the microphones so that they won't pick up low-frequency "rumble." A better original recording is a million times easier to "fix in the mix" than a noisy one.
Finally, if you're going to encode the sound into MP3, please, please encode it at 128 KHz or above. (Sorry Yeppie, I know you're dealing with bandwidth/storage limitations on this website). A bad MP3 is not only less satisfying to hear, but is nearly impossible to re-convert and edit.
Aliasing noise is _not_ sexy...
Here's another way, and you don't need WavePad software (although you'll need some sort of audio mixing/processing software:
1. Record/transfer the original audio file into .WAV format on your computer. This preserves all the characteristics of the original recording.
2. UseEQ to null out the most aggravating frequencies.
3. Selectively find and cut large silent gaps in the recording. Edit out loud, invasive sounds (unless they have something to do with your desired content). I would rather lose 30 seconds of love sounds from a 3 minute recording than to have obnoxious sounds superimposed over the moaning female.
4. If all else fails, plan to use your treated sound file for making mashes, audio collages and the like.
I did this with a recording of two young neighbors getting it on. Although the "cleaned" version sounded artificial, it was suitable to include with music, other sounds etc. in a mash.
i have an acceptable recording of some neighbors screwing, but unfortunately they were listening to Alanis Morrisette as they made love. I wanted her gasps and orgasmic cries, so here's what I did:
a.) I lowered the volume to the point where only her cries etc. peaked above -18 dB.
b.) I used a Noise Gate setting to grab only the peaks, then
c.) I brought the volume back up (normalizing).
Like I said, the result sounded artificial, but Alanis' vocals were almost completely removed after I did this. The resulting track has become a favorite ingredient for mixes and sound collages.
The single biggest thing to remember is this: Control the noise levels as much as you can while making the original recording. Of course, many things will be beyond your control, but do what you can to minimize noise. Don't handle the microphone(s) after starting to record. Place the mics in a location away from wind if recording outdoors. Place the microphones on the "quiet" side of a building if possible. Use directional microphones when possible. Mount the microphones so that they won't pick up low-frequency "rumble." A better original recording is a million times easier to "fix in the mix" than a noisy one.
Finally, if you're going to encode the sound into MP3, please, please encode it at 128 KHz or above. (Sorry Yeppie, I know you're dealing with bandwidth/storage limitations on this website). A bad MP3 is not only less satisfying to hear, but is nearly impossible to re-convert and edit.
Aliasing noise is _not_ sexy...
-
mysx
- Kingpin
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 24 Jul 2006 04:23
- x 32
bitrate sux
Thanks El Ciego. I'm not very good in english but I hope most of you
understand. I also think the MP3's should be at least 192 kbit/s because
I've tested the quality on different bitrates and I can hear the difference.
There's typical noices that has nothing to do with the situation when
recording. Less bitrates eats the original sound and you can hear hum
and hisses and sometimes it sounds like they are making love in a can.
I hope those who have destoyed the sound with 64 kbit/s or less, still
have the original? The files on the computer should be PCM 44,100
kHz; 16 bit stereo a least. These can be compessed very effective to
ZIP files with WinRAR (shareware), 7-zip (free) or similar to save space.
In that way the original quality will remain. Lower bitrates like 64 kbit/s
should only be free samples of the originals. Well, it's my opinion.
Sorry yeppie and others who doesn't agree.
You are all using a computer right now, don't you? I think many of you are
trying to improve the sounds exactly like me. I installed WavePad the other
day and it seems to be better because the plugins in Audacity is limited and
some doesn't work at all. Maybe it's my fault because I'm not professional
but I think it should be easier. However, I cannot have a good result in
WavePad as long as the sound files are destroyed by too low bitrates.
understand. I also think the MP3's should be at least 192 kbit/s because
I've tested the quality on different bitrates and I can hear the difference.
There's typical noices that has nothing to do with the situation when
recording. Less bitrates eats the original sound and you can hear hum
and hisses and sometimes it sounds like they are making love in a can.
I hope those who have destoyed the sound with 64 kbit/s or less, still
have the original? The files on the computer should be PCM 44,100
kHz; 16 bit stereo a least. These can be compessed very effective to
ZIP files with WinRAR (shareware), 7-zip (free) or similar to save space.
In that way the original quality will remain. Lower bitrates like 64 kbit/s
should only be free samples of the originals. Well, it's my opinion.
Sorry yeppie and others who doesn't agree.
You are all using a computer right now, don't you? I think many of you are
trying to improve the sounds exactly like me. I installed WavePad the other
day and it seems to be better because the plugins in Audacity is limited and
some doesn't work at all. Maybe it's my fault because I'm not professional
but I think it should be easier. However, I cannot have a good result in
WavePad as long as the sound files are destroyed by too low bitrates.
-
El Ciego
- Kingpin
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 09 Oct 2006 06:36
- x 1
I beg to disagree
To RP,
Here is what I believe.
1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a 16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Low bitrates cause aliasing noise. This "robotic" sound or "making love in a can" effect is not enjoyable, and even folks with lower expectations than mine can hear the difference..
BTW, the compression schemes used by XM radio and Sirius Radio just suck. Listen to a cymbal crash on satellite radio...it hurts.
Here is what I believe.
1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a 16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Low bitrates cause aliasing noise. This "robotic" sound or "making love in a can" effect is not enjoyable, and even folks with lower expectations than mine can hear the difference..
BTW, the compression schemes used by XM radio and Sirius Radio just suck. Listen to a cymbal crash on satellite radio...it hurts.
-
sc0tt-uk
- Knight
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 20 Dec 2005 12:43
- x 26
ah, we're back to the bandwidth/bitrate debate.
RP's point about recording in 16 bit 44.1 khz is a good one. Often the inbuilt mics in voice recorders and similar devices don't record anywhere near, but get as close as you can with your gear.
I've heard good and bad mp3s pass through this site, but the worst to listen too are usually the ones with the encoder set way lower than 44.1 KHZ. Keep your encoder set to that (lower it only if your original recording isn't at that frequency), and keep in mind when you're encoding that if you recorded with a mono mic you can halve the bitrate without destroying sound. To clarify, if you think 192 kbit/s stereo sounds alright to listen to a song, then when you come to upload a mono recording here you'll only need to encode at 96 kbit/s, because the song you were listening too will have been a stereo encode.
damn its hard to keep this stuff easy to understand and still get the point across isn't it!
sc0tt-uk
RP's point about recording in 16 bit 44.1 khz is a good one. Often the inbuilt mics in voice recorders and similar devices don't record anywhere near, but get as close as you can with your gear.
I've heard good and bad mp3s pass through this site, but the worst to listen too are usually the ones with the encoder set way lower than 44.1 KHZ. Keep your encoder set to that (lower it only if your original recording isn't at that frequency), and keep in mind when you're encoding that if you recorded with a mono mic you can halve the bitrate without destroying sound. To clarify, if you think 192 kbit/s stereo sounds alright to listen to a song, then when you come to upload a mono recording here you'll only need to encode at 96 kbit/s, because the song you were listening too will have been a stereo encode.
damn its hard to keep this stuff easy to understand and still get the point across isn't it!
sc0tt-uk
-
mysx
- Kingpin
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 24 Jul 2006 04:23
- x 32
Re: I beg to disagree
1. It's true. A PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit stereo at 25 MB willEl Ciego wrote:1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a 16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.
be 17.7 MB using the best ZIP compression in WinRAR.
A RAR of the same file will be 11.1 MB but I never use it.
2. 192 kbps is the lowest for CD quality according to others.
I might be wrong but most prefer 192 kbps or more.
3. Do you mean low-loss when making MP3's?
-
mysx
- Kingpin
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 24 Jul 2006 04:23
- x 32
Ha hasc0tt-uk wrote:ah, we're back to the bandwidth/bitrate debate....
Yes we're trying to find a better solution but so far it seems yeppie have made the best choice. If it wasn't for space and bandwith
we could enjoy the sounds even more. I suggest a channel for us who
wants more, where we can share different thoughs, bigger files and
cuts by transfering files direct to each other. Maybe via MSN or similar
program where we still can be anonymous. But it should be connected
to yeppie.org somehow. It's just a thought. I don't know.
About the recording with different devices I'm sure you're doing the
best you can but it's not what I'm trying to say. It's when you transfer
the sound to the computer. Then you should chose the very best format
there is, without any compression. About mono recordings: 96 kbit/s for
for MP3's in mono seems ok for uploading but the original should be
PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit; Mono at least. Never delete the original!
It should be saved for special events and for further improvements.
-
sc0tt-uk
- Knight
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 20 Dec 2005 12:43
- x 26
Yeah i'm with you RP about the compression. Its worth pointing out that some devices record straight to mp3 or other similar compressed formats, and you won't be able to save any space by compressing those. but always record at the best quality you can because you can't create something from nothing, and for wav files and the less lossy formats then bust out a copy of winrar and keep those originals for a rainy day!
hmmmm, tying the audiophile channel in with yeppie.org without sending Yeppie's bandwidth usage through the roof is a tricky one. its just an idea but maybe somebody could take a look at online file folders - I think its sold by godaddy.com and a few others. no idea what the bandwidth restrictions are like, it might not be suitable, i just saw it used by a few mastering suites lately and thought it was neat - easier than FTP for the newbies.
sc0tt-uk
hmmmm, tying the audiophile channel in with yeppie.org without sending Yeppie's bandwidth usage through the roof is a tricky one. its just an idea but maybe somebody could take a look at online file folders - I think its sold by godaddy.com and a few others. no idea what the bandwidth restrictions are like, it might not be suitable, i just saw it used by a few mastering suites lately and thought it was neat - easier than FTP for the newbies.
sc0tt-uk
-
mysx
- Kingpin
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 24 Jul 2006 04:23
- x 32
The original files is gold. Write protect!
sc0tt-uk
You say that some devices record straight to mp3 or other similar
compressed formats. I didn't know. I was thinking about tape recorders.
I don't know very much about the new devices. I hope some will record
straight to wave also. I'm about to buy a mp3 player or similar but I
haven't yet found what I want. Thanks for telling that so I know
what more I should look for.
Back to the topic:
Well, it's still the topic. By sharing files we can help each other better to
improve the files without to upload double on the server. We could share
some fun clips we made and if someone have original files that is too big
to upload, it would be great for quality freaks like me to have it. Still it
should be for members only. By the way, is the chat active?
Ok I'll stop here. But see my last post in Equipment & software
(thoughs about mp3 players + link to MODPlug, another toy).
sc0tt-uk
You say that some devices record straight to mp3 or other similar
compressed formats. I didn't know. I was thinking about tape recorders.
I don't know very much about the new devices. I hope some will record
straight to wave also. I'm about to buy a mp3 player or similar but I
haven't yet found what I want. Thanks for telling that so I know
what more I should look for.
Back to the topic:
Well, it's still the topic. By sharing files we can help each other better to
improve the files without to upload double on the server. We could share
some fun clips we made and if someone have original files that is too big
to upload, it would be great for quality freaks like me to have it. Still it
should be for members only. By the way, is the chat active?
Ok I'll stop here. But see my last post in Equipment & software
(thoughs about mp3 players + link to MODPlug, another toy).
-
El Ciego
- Kingpin
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 09 Oct 2006 06:36
- x 1
Re: I beg to disagree
RP,
I will try to answer your points.
[quote="RP"][quote="El Ciego"]1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a 16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.[/quote]
1. It's true. A PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit stereo at 25 MB will
be 17.7 MB using the best ZIP compression in WinRAR.
A RAR of the same file will be 11.1 MB but I never use it.
Right. Also, I've had really bad luck unpacking ounds after being compressed into ZIP or RAR formats...I usually lose something in the unpacking.
2. 192 kbps is the lowest for CD quality according to others.
I might be wrong but most prefer 192 kbps or more.
Okay...no easy answer here. As pointed out above, the 192 kbps is figured for stereo; if the sound is monaural, you'll get the identical quality at an encoding rate of 96 kbps. Since I find 128 kbps acceptable for stereo (better sounding than FM radio), that means that 64 kbps should be perfectly fine for mono.
3. Do you mean low-loss when making MP3's?[/quote]
Yes.
I think the problem with many files in the archives is that the sounds were poorly-recorded from the start. If the sound is encoded at 192 kbps, but was encoded at say, 11 kHz and at 8-biyt resolution, it won't matter how high is your encoding rate in bits per second...shit will still sound like shit.
To me, the best option is to record any sound with the following minimums:
16 bit
44.1 kHz resolution
I'm about to install a new sound card which offers no FM synthesis or wavetable sounds for games, but which allows true 32 bit high resolution recording. But even that won't fix a bad initial recording.
64 kbps mono encoding/128 kbps stereo encoding.
Again, remember that even a generous encoding bitrate (MP3) won't salvage a recording which was bad from the start.
I will try to answer your points.
[quote="RP"][quote="El Ciego"]1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a 16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.[/quote]
1. It's true. A PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit stereo at 25 MB will
be 17.7 MB using the best ZIP compression in WinRAR.
A RAR of the same file will be 11.1 MB but I never use it.
Right. Also, I've had really bad luck unpacking ounds after being compressed into ZIP or RAR formats...I usually lose something in the unpacking.
2. 192 kbps is the lowest for CD quality according to others.
I might be wrong but most prefer 192 kbps or more.
Okay...no easy answer here. As pointed out above, the 192 kbps is figured for stereo; if the sound is monaural, you'll get the identical quality at an encoding rate of 96 kbps. Since I find 128 kbps acceptable for stereo (better sounding than FM radio), that means that 64 kbps should be perfectly fine for mono.
3. Do you mean low-loss when making MP3's?[/quote]
Yes.
I think the problem with many files in the archives is that the sounds were poorly-recorded from the start. If the sound is encoded at 192 kbps, but was encoded at say, 11 kHz and at 8-biyt resolution, it won't matter how high is your encoding rate in bits per second...shit will still sound like shit.
To me, the best option is to record any sound with the following minimums:
16 bit
44.1 kHz resolution
I'm about to install a new sound card which offers no FM synthesis or wavetable sounds for games, but which allows true 32 bit high resolution recording. But even that won't fix a bad initial recording.
64 kbps mono encoding/128 kbps stereo encoding.
Again, remember that even a generous encoding bitrate (MP3) won't salvage a recording which was bad from the start.
-
mysx
- Kingpin
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 24 Jul 2006 04:23
- x 32
El Ciego, sorry but it's hard for me to read.
I'll try to fix it (your latest text is darkred).
RP, I will try to answer your points.
RP quoted El Ciego:
1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be
significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better
than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a
16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound
back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.
RP:
1. It's true. A PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit stereo at 25 MB will
be 17.7 MB using the best ZIP compression in WinRAR.
A RAR of the same file will be 11.1 MB but I never use it.
2. 192 kbps is the lowest for CD quality according to others.
I might be wrong but most prefer 192 kbps or more.
3. Do you mean low-loss when making MP3's?
_____________________________________________
El Ciego:
1. Right. Also, I've had really bad luck unpacking sounds after being
compressed into ZIP or RAR formats... I usually lose something
in the unpacking.
2. Okay...no easy answer here. As pointed out above, the 192 kbps is figured
for stereo; if the sound is monaural, you'll get the identical quality at an encoding
rate of 96 kbps. Since I find 128 kbps acceptable for stereo (better sounding
than FM radio), that means that 64 kbps should be perfectly fine for mono.
3. Yes.
I think the problem with many files in the archives is that the sounds were
poorly-recorded from the start. If the sound is encoded at 192 kbps, but
was encoded at say, 11 kHz and at 8-biyt resolution, it won't matter how
high is your encoding rate in bits per second...shit will still sound like shit.
To me, the best option is to record any sound with the following minimums:
16 bit
44.1 kHz resolution
I'm about to install a new sound card which offers no FM synthesis
or wavetable sounds for games, but which allows true 32 bit high
resolution recording. But even that won't fix a bad initial recording.
64 kbps mono encoding/128 kbps stereo encoding.
Again, remember that even a generous encoding bitrate (MP3) won't
salvage a recording which was bad from the start.
_____________________________________________
Thanks El Ciego (hope it looks ok)
Again I must say: Do not delete your original files! They should be
saved as they are for further improvements. Never edit the original,
write protect and burn it on one or more CD's. And only edit a copy!
...Well, you probably already know. But one can forget.
_____________________________________________
I still don't understand about unpacked files (1). I have a problem.
Unfortunaltey I deleted all the original files that I got here from start.
I thought: No problem, they are all in the archive. Then I discovered
that some of the very best files in stereo was changed to 64 kbp/s
Ok, I had the originals (128 kbps) on CD - but they are compressed
in ZIP files, at the highest compression!!! Now, I haven't heard any
difference on the unpacked files. But I wonder what could be bad?
That's one reason why I would like to have all your
original files via MSN Messenger, or similar.
I'll try to fix it (your latest text is darkred).
RP, I will try to answer your points.
RP quoted El Ciego:
1. Compression using RAR or ZIP compression will not be
significantly smaller than their uncompressed counterparts.
2. 192 kbps is a bit excessive. IMHO, 128 still gives better
than FM radio-quality reproduction. Again, starting with a
16- or 24- bit, 44.1kHz sample will help.
3. Low-loss compression schemes will allow you to reconvert the sound
back into WAV (PCM) format without too much audible damage.
RP:
1. It's true. A PCM 44,100 kHz; 16 bit stereo at 25 MB will
be 17.7 MB using the best ZIP compression in WinRAR.
A RAR of the same file will be 11.1 MB but I never use it.
2. 192 kbps is the lowest for CD quality according to others.
I might be wrong but most prefer 192 kbps or more.
3. Do you mean low-loss when making MP3's?
_____________________________________________
El Ciego:
1. Right. Also, I've had really bad luck unpacking sounds after being
compressed into ZIP or RAR formats... I usually lose something
in the unpacking.
2. Okay...no easy answer here. As pointed out above, the 192 kbps is figured
for stereo; if the sound is monaural, you'll get the identical quality at an encoding
rate of 96 kbps. Since I find 128 kbps acceptable for stereo (better sounding
than FM radio), that means that 64 kbps should be perfectly fine for mono.
3. Yes.
I think the problem with many files in the archives is that the sounds were
poorly-recorded from the start. If the sound is encoded at 192 kbps, but
was encoded at say, 11 kHz and at 8-biyt resolution, it won't matter how
high is your encoding rate in bits per second...shit will still sound like shit.
To me, the best option is to record any sound with the following minimums:
16 bit
44.1 kHz resolution
I'm about to install a new sound card which offers no FM synthesis
or wavetable sounds for games, but which allows true 32 bit high
resolution recording. But even that won't fix a bad initial recording.
64 kbps mono encoding/128 kbps stereo encoding.
Again, remember that even a generous encoding bitrate (MP3) won't
salvage a recording which was bad from the start.
_____________________________________________
Thanks El Ciego
(hope it looks ok) Again I must say: Do not delete your original files! They should be
saved as they are for further improvements. Never edit the original,
write protect and burn it on one or more CD's. And only edit a copy!
...Well, you probably already know. But one can forget.
_____________________________________________
I still don't understand about unpacked files (1). I have a problem.
Unfortunaltey I deleted all the original files that I got here from start.
I thought: No problem, they are all in the archive. Then I discovered
that some of the very best files in stereo was changed to 64 kbp/s
Ok, I had the originals (128 kbps) on CD - but they are compressed
in ZIP files, at the highest compression!!! Now, I haven't heard any
difference on the unpacked files. But I wonder what could be bad?
That's one reason why I would like to have all your
original files via MSN Messenger, or similar.