[CLUE-Tech] cdparanoia and ripping CDs with Linux

[Jed S. Baer]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:30:20 -0700
"Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:

> * Jed S. Baer (thag at frii.com) wrote:
> > Oops. I meant 256k/channel. I found the artifacts at 128 to be too
> > distracting. It's also dependent upon the source material. I haven't
> > found Sarah Brightman to be listenable at all in an MP3.
> 
> I have you tried variable bit rate?  I find this really helps with lame.
> It tries to maintain a certain rate, but increases the bit rate when the
> music is complicated, and reduces it when the music is simple.
> 
> lame -h -m j --abr 192
> 
> and am happy with the compromise between size and quality.

I'll have to try that out. Thanks.

-- 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
 - Thomas Paine

Received: from tummy.com (IDENT:Qmov8vjdUkIeviqwP9dddqLcKkkbHph9 at secure.tummy.com [216.17.150.2])
	by clue.denver.co.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20700
	for <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:31:38 -0700
Received: (qmail 2034 invoked by uid 10); 19 Mar 2002 18:41:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 28945 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2002 18:41:16 -0000
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:41:16 -0700
From: Sean Reifschneider <jafo at tummy.com>
To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] OT: DSL QoS Revisited
Message-ID: <20020319114116.A28065 at tummy.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203190754350.10186-100000 at voldemort>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203190754350.10186-100000 at voldemort>; from randy at arabie.org on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:21:57AM -0700
Sender: clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
Errors-To: clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
X-BeenThere: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
List-Id: CLUE technical discussions, questions and answers. <clue-tech.clue.denver.co.us>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:21:57AM -0700, Randy Arabie wrote:
>I've had my Qwest DSL service for almost three months now.  My 
>opinion is the service is adequate, but not as reliable as AT&T
>Broadband was for me.

Ignoring the week or two that your cable modem was down during the
Excite at Home issues, eh?  ;-)

We have one of the older DSL lines (with the Cisco 675), and it's been
super reliable.  There have hardly been any outages in the 2 or 3 years
we've had it.  Most of them have been caused by our ISP doing maintenance
in the early mornings...

We recently got another DSL line, this time it is running CAP and uses the
678.  This one has been much less reliable.  It was down for 12 hours the
other day because of the QWest OC-48 outage in down-town Denver, and then
our up-stream ISP on that line was also having lots of problems with their
router...

In general, I'd have to say that our older DSL line has been much more
reliable than the cable modem, ignoring the 2 weeks we were without cable
modem because of Excite.  I think we've had a couple other outages on the
cable service in about 6 months.

Though it is nice to be able to grab the Mandrake 8.2 ISOs at 166KB/sec for
only $135/month.  The older Excite service I thought was better though...

Sean
-- 
 Hell hath no fury, like a file-system scorned.  -- Sean Reifschneider, 1998
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python