MP3 burning.... Advise appreciated.

[Jim]

How do you set the order of songs to be played
back when burning MP3s to CDs or DVDs using the
Nero MP3 burning module? Nero seems to keep auto
arranging and burning them in alphabetical order.
What role does the M3U playlist perform in the
process?

Will files recorded with mixed bit rates playback
ok in the common houshold MP3 players or must they
be burned @ a standardized bitrate ( eg- 44.1 HZ 16
bit Stereo)
Thank you for any pointers and guidance.

[Dimitrios Tzortzakakis]

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "Jim" > ?????? ??? ??????
...
>
> How do you set the order of songs to be played
> back when burning MP3s to CDs or DVDs using the
> Nero MP3 burning module? Nero seems to keep auto
> arranging and burning them in alphabetical order.
> What role does the M3U playlist perform in the
> process?
>
> Will files recorded with mixed bit rates playback
> ok in the common houshold MP3 players or must they
> be burned @ a standardized bitrate ( eg- 44.1 HZ 16
> bit Stereo)
> Thank you for any pointers and guidance.
The most common bitrate with MP3 is 128 kbps (kilo bit per second).It's
*supposed* to bring a balance between large file sizes and bad quality.What
you try to say, is the *sample* rate of the cd, 44.1 kHz 16 bit stereo?Bit
rate is the compression rate of an already existing digital recording with
the Fraunhofer institut algorithm to MP3, while sample rate is the
conversion rate of an analogue source (everything that is accceptable by
human senses)to digital, with an ADC (analogue to digital converter).

[Jeff Richardson]

Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once they
go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound and
everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
to me anyway.

[Jeff Richardson]

Yes, to be able to playback on ALL cd players it needs to be 44.1/16.

44.1/16.... doesn't matter if it's 128, 256, VBR, etc.... but needs to
be 44.1/16

[John]

Actually, in Nero, after you add the files that you want to burn and the
window displays the playback order, you simply click and drop it into the
position that you want it to play in.

John

"Jeff Richardson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
> you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once they
> go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound and
> everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
> to me anyway.
>

[Jon J. Yeager]

> "Jeff Richardson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
>> you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once they
>> go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound and
>> everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
>> to me anyway.

You noticed that too?

So I'm *not* crazy, then? 128k sounds clearer than anything above it that
I've tried, which makes no sense to me.

[Ricky Hunt]

"John" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, in Nero, after you add the files that you want to burn and the
> window displays the playback order, you simply click and drop it into the
> position that you want it to play in.
>
> John

Most programs have a "sort by alphabetical" option. It sounds like he has
that turned on.

[Ricky Hunt]

"Jon J. Yeager" > wrote in message
eenews.net...
>
> You noticed that too?
>
> So I'm *not* crazy, then? 128k sounds clearer than anything above it that
> I've tried, which makes no sense to me.

It depends on the type of music (but no way should above 128k sound less
"clear" than 128k in the true sense of the word...the 128k algorithm is
probably pushing things more to the front that you didn't notice before..or
more correctly they are now apparent because of what was thrown away). 128k
actually makes some music sound "better" (IMO) when listened to in places
with high ambient noise levels. For listening in the car I prefer the 128k
MP3 to the original CD for a lot of pop/rock recordings simply because it
helps the most important parts get above the noise floor of the environment.
Younger generations may like this sound for all environments but if that's
the case I think it's simply because most of their life they've been
presented with inferior sound so they equate this with "professional".
<flame retardant engaged>.

[Jim]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:36:57 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" >
wrote:

>"John" > wrote in message
...
>> Actually, in Nero, after you add the files that you want to burn and the
>> window displays the playback order, you simply click and drop it into the
>> position that you want it to play in.
>>
>> John
>
>Most programs have a "sort by alphabetical" option. It sounds like he has
>that turned on.
>
That's not it. I've gone thru the Nero preferences and option settings
with a fine toothed comb but there does not appear to be any such
auto 'sort' option.
The only way to get the mp3 songs (or other files) into the order I
want is to preface the file names with a series of ascending numbers!
Donno how John is doing it......

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.pro Jon J. Yeager > wrote:
> > "Jeff Richardson" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
> >> you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once they
> >> go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound and
> >> everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
> >> to me anyway.

> You noticed that too?

> So I'm *not* crazy, then? 128k sounds clearer than anything above it that
> I've tried, which makes no sense to me.

Depends on that encoder you used, and what music you're encoding. Theres' no
way >128 should sound *intrinsically* more 'compressed' or attenuated in
the treble bands than <=128.

Try the free LAME 3.9x encoder , using --alt preset standard (that's VRB, ~192 kpbs
avg) setting

see
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124


I was unable to ABX a variety of such MP3s (rock, jazz, classical) from their
source .wavs.



--

-S

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro Jon J. Yeager > wrote:
>> > "Jeff Richardson" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
>> >> you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once
>> >> they
>> >> go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound
>> >> and
>> >> everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
>> >> to me anyway.
>
>> You noticed that too?
>
>> So I'm *not* crazy, then? 128k sounds clearer than anything above it that
>> I've tried, which makes no sense to me.
>
> Depends on that encoder you used, and what music you're encoding. Theres'
> no
> way >128 should sound *intrinsically* more 'compressed' or attenuated in
> the treble bands than <=128.
>
> Try the free LAME 3.9x encoder , using --alt preset standard (that's VRB,
> ~192 kpbs
> avg) setting
>
> see
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
>
>
> I was unable to ABX a variety of such MP3s (rock, jazz, classical) from
> their
> source .wavs.

One of the few advantages of being old and having poor high frequency
hearing is that you can get along with a thoroughly compressed sound file.
I used to use mp3 at 128kb/s. As my hearing got worse, I could get by with
64kb/s, which occupies half the space of 128kb/s. Lately, I've been
experimenting with wma VBR with quality setting 10. I don't know what the
10 means, but the compression ratio gets as high as 53:1 when coding certain
piano recordings, and gets to about 35:1 with more complex sounds.

I just encoded Iberia, from the new Hamelin CD. The original CDDA file was
840MB. The compressed version is only 16MB, a reduction of 53:1 from the
original, and I can't tell the difference by listening alone! Admittedly,
this is an extreme case. Orchestral recordings with a lot of percussion
compress to about 26:1.

[Lynn]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro Jon J. Yeager > wrote:
>> > "Jeff Richardson" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Nero should work. Add the files one by one though, in the order that
>> >> you want them, then burn. I think it's when you select all at once
>> >> they
>> >> go alphabetical. I like 128 kbps anything under has a low bit sound
>> >> and
>> >> everything over sounds compressed to me (lack of treble registers)...
>> >> to me anyway.
>
>> You noticed that too?
>
>> So I'm *not* crazy, then? 128k sounds clearer than anything above it that
>> I've tried, which makes no sense to me.
>
> Depends on that encoder you used, and what music you're encoding. Theres'
> no
> way >128 should sound *intrinsically* more 'compressed' or attenuated in
> the treble bands than <=128.
>
> Try the free LAME 3.9x encoder , using --alt preset standard (that's VRB,
> ~192 kpbs
> avg) setting
>
> see
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
>
>
> I was unable to ABX a variety of such MP3s (rock, jazz, classical) from
> their
> source .wavs.
>
>
>
> --
>
> -S

I prefer "Blade" for 160Kbps and above, and "Lame" for 128Kbps or Below.

--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net