DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: dm CD Sound Quality discussion

Forums > The General Forum

dm CD Sound Quality discussion

Jennae	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 11:09 AM Please post ideas on various techniques and sound quality issues concerning the dm compilation CD. Better known as Thasp's Playground!
BassNinjaEnigma	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 12:07 PM for one.... 1. The mastering must be consistant quality throughout the whole compilation (same EQing/Levels). note on levels: through compression and expansion the highest volume out put and dynamic range can be acheived. 2. As for different genres being on the same CD... this presents a problem with #1. above. Most genres have different overall EQing to them (not to mention different styles, instuments ect...) 3. Sound degredation. a. If the initial recording/rendering is poor quality, the final product will not be as professional as it should be. b. Transfer of audio through computers.... annoying pops and clicks 'can' be fixed, but it would have to be done by someone who knows what they are doing. I'm sure there will be more suggestions on how to improve the sound quality, for now these are my suggestions. I take my leave now. bow :goodluck: frum da
Jennae	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 1:09 PM I know we also have some editing and mixing masters here. Who's willing to assist in this area? Any volunteers? I believe Leflaw was one Trostlos was another... (correct me if I am wrong guys) anyone else have the skills and the equiptment to assis in this area?
milladrive	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 1:25 PM /me hides behind the clock ticking away on the wall
Expose	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 3:30 PM Will it be an MP3 CD, or a normal CD?
GrooveTonic	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 4:21 PM .wav is ideal, if the artists still have their original wave files
Expose	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 4:34 PM If the artist didn't keep the WAVs, burn them, ZIP them, or just convert them to something lossless, just bad... if anyone spends money on it, they should have the right to encode to any format they want, being forced to use MP3, is not good...
BassNinjaEnigma	Date: February 13, 2003 @ 4:39 PM skillz but sadly no equipment....
Expose	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 12:52 AM MP3 Destroys Surround Sound Encoding. That sure as hell won't go over well with the clubs and DJs with the speakers bigger than your house. 2) At 256k, music is the same as the WAV, as tons of listening tests have shown, yet with some sounds, even 320k sounds like absolute crap. 3) People can't encode to Ogg Vorbis, or MPC, they're stuck with the MP3s. Even if the decode it to a WAV then encode it to an Ogg Vorbis or MPC file, it'll sound like shit since the MP3 destroyed the WAV's data. 4) Come on, how many people have CD-MP3 players? :rollseyes:. Now, if the reason you wish to use MP3s, is because of transferring the artist's songs to DM in WAV format is way too big, there is a solution. 1) Mail a burned CD, with your music in WAV format(not decoded from an MP3), to someplace. 2) Use a lossless audio format. For example, a FLAC file can be around 20-30 megabytes(usually 30), where the WAV can be 50 MB. It is a big file, yet the thing is, it's the same as the WAV. MP3, MPC, and Ogg Vorbis, are all lossy, they take out parts of the file that cannot be regained by any means. Yet FLAC, is like a zip file, where if you unzip it, it is the same as the file before you zipped it. So you put up the FLAC files that are about half the size of the WAVs, then decode them to WAV files, then make thhe CD from them. If you set it to "high", it wil compress them a lot slower, yet the files will be smaller too. If you MUST use MP3s; see if you can fit a bunch of 320k MP3s onto the CD. 256k minimum. When people say 192k is CD quality, it's just plain not true, since some parts of audio, at 320k suck. Nothing that is "lossy", like Ogg Vorbis(even more so), MPC, and MP3 can sound the same as the CD. All formats have test samples of certain types of sound, that completely screw up each codec; saying that it is "impossible" for human hearing to hear a difference, is very wrong, since with the right sound equiptment(hell, even this laptop and cheap headphones will do), and right audio clip, anyone with decent hearing can hear a difference(once told what it is to look for). That is all :nod: :D" id="33677">Here's the deal Here's why NOT to make it into an MP3 CD; 1) MP3 Destroys Surround Sound Encoding. That sure as hell won't go over well with the clubs and DJs with the speakers bigger than your house. 2) At 256k, music is the same as the WAV, as tons of listening tests have shown, yet with some sounds, even 320k sounds like absolute crap. 3) People can't encode to Ogg Vorbis, or MPC, they're stuck with the MP3s. Even if the decode it to a WAV then encode it to an Ogg Vorbis or MPC file, it'll sound like shit since the MP3 destroyed the WAV's data. 4) Come on, how many people have CD-MP3 players? . Now, if the reason you wish to use MP3s, is because of transferring the artist's songs to DM in WAV format is way too big, there is a solution. 1) Mail a burned CD, with your music in WAV format(not decoded from an MP3), to someplace. 2) Use a lossless audio format. For example, a FLAC file can be around 20-30 megabytes(usually 30), where the WAV can be 50 MB. It is a big file, yet the thing is, it's the same as the WAV. MP3, MPC, and Ogg Vorbis, are all lossy, they take out parts of the file that cannot be regained by any means. Yet FLAC, is like a zip file, where if you unzip it, it is the same as the file before you zipped it. So you put up the FLAC files that are about half the size of the WAVs, then decode them to WAV files, then make thhe CD from them. If you set it to "high", it wil compress them a lot slower, yet the files will be smaller too. If you MUST use MP3s; see if you can fit a bunch of 320k MP3s onto the CD. 256k minimum. When people say 192k is CD quality, it's just plain not true, since some parts of audio, at 320k suck. Nothing that is "lossy", like Ogg Vorbis(even more so), MPC, and MP3 can sound the same as the CD. All formats have test samples of certain types of sound, that completely screw up each codec; saying that it is "impossible" for human hearing to hear a difference, is very wrong, since with the right sound equiptment(hell, even this laptop and cheap headphones will do), and right audio clip, anyone with decent hearing can hear a difference(once told what it is to look for). That is all
echaos	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 1:38 AM where's a damn clapping ICON!! damn that was beautiful. SOme serious thought and discussion.
echaos	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 1:39 AM Who was that masked EC Girl?
Expose	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 1:44 AM Or, if you use MP3s, use VBR. Use the program easyLAME(in software section), and use --alt preset extreme, so the parts that need a high bitrate like 256k-320k, get it, and the parts that are soft and simle get 128k-192k like they need, forgot to include that. /me turns brain switch back into the off position, ahhhhh, much better .
echaos	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 2:02 AM I bet...I hurt just reading it...
azhazhellfire	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 3:55 AM i ask you this - where would we be without thasp?
Jennae	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 4:00 AM
RyanS	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 5:47 AM Just something to interject here. I know everyone wants the best quality. But there are a few things to think of first: If the CD is going to be recorded as CDDA (CD Audio), how are some artists going to upload their .wav files? Granted most probably have broadband, but maybe some have dialup? Have you ever tried uploading a ~40M file on dialup? Maybe make it possible for the artist to send the song(s) on a data CD-R with the .wav file. Some type of mastering should be done, but be careful not to destroy any dynamics. Too many CDs now (especially the RIAA ) lack so much dynamics, and push the threshold to 0dB. If it's going to be an MP3 disc, you're going to get much more music on the disc. But as Thasp suggest, re-encoding at a highter quality from the original .wav would be best. But you must take this into concideration. If there's going to be over 100 songs on this disc, you're going to asking alot of artists to re-encode their songs. Using a compression other than MP3 for the disc is a bad idea. Why? Even though that there are much better compression schemes out there, MP3 is the most popular. Most people don't have standard software to play anything else than MP3. Not only that, if someone decided to burn an audio CD, how many burning software do you know that opens MPC/FLAC/OGG/etc.? There might a very few, but for the most part, most stick with Roxio/Nero. You'll expect someone to convert it into a .wav using another software. Although VBR would be the way to go, it also is a bad idea. Although your computer may play it fine, some older hardware players don't like it that well. I have an older Memorex portable that doesn't like VBR very well. It will choke on high bitrates. Just a few things to think of first
Expose	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 10:07 AM 1) I meant to UPLOAD the FLAC files, then make them into WAV files for the disc. Why upload the WAV files for the CD, when you can upload something almost half the size that is lossless and then, convert it to a WAV with nothing lost? 2) If uploading is a problem, there's always the option of burning a CD and mailing it, which seems to be better. I mean, even if you HAVE broadband, what'll you upload at, 128k . 3) Ryan, you're right about the VBR, thanks; scratch that. We can use 320k CBR, and if those can't fit all the songs on the CD, we can make a 256k CBR CD. 4) If space is an issue, and you wish to go with the WAVs, make it a double CD, or a triple or quadruple(sp?) CD.
Jennae	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 1:26 PM yes!! I love these great ideas and good issues being discussed! Excellent! wish I knew what the hell you two were talking about!
RyanS	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 3:22 PM --alt-preset cbr 192.I use 192 for my MP3 CDs and I have rarely seen any problem of sound quality issues. I can fit roughly 130 songs onto a 700MB disc.
milladrive	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 3:35 PM And I think VBR sux. Ryan, you 0wn me in this thread. Everything you've said is right on the money, imo. :nod:" id="33729">"...but be careful not to destroy any dynamics. Too many CDs now (especially the RIAA ) lack so much dynamics, and push the threshold to 0dB." ....I couldn't agree with this more. Right on, Ryan. And I think VBR sux. Ryan, you 0wn me in this thread. Everything you've said is right on the money, imo.
RyanS	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 3:41 PM Thanks
Expose	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 3:41 PM Yes, but how many songs are we talking about? If, at 192k, we have space left over, I see no reason to not up it. 256k, is what has been proven to sound identical to the CD in music(read; not samples meant to screw it up ). 192k hasn't, yet could still do. We'll start at that --alt preset cbr 192k. If there's room, make it 224k, then 256k, since there already is a lack of willing artists as there is. Does it look like we have 130 songs here yet ready to go on the CD? Plus, a double disc, could always be an option(if, we have so many songs, that we'd have to down the bitrate to 160k, which is unacceptable for production) Of course, we have to tell the artists, 1) How to make these MP3s. OR 2) That we need their WAV files to make the MP3s. If we don't they'll probably just take their 128k MP3s, and encode them to 192k MP3s with a different encoder that takes out different parts, and it'll sound even MORE screwed up then the 128k MP3. Good ideas ryan
rapidhopeloss	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 4:20 PM Sending wavs could be a problem for modem users. Do most DMers have cable?
RyanS	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 4:27 PM I'm on dialup, but then again, I don't have any songs to add.
leflaw	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 5:53 PM Consensus? Mp3 encoding at 256 ??? Or stick to CD wave files
victorsskull	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 5:57 PM if some one at dm had yahoo or aim or msn messenger we could send wavs through them. just a thought.
Expose	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 6:17 PM As I said, don't send WAVs, send FLAC files. They're about half the size, just convert the WAVs to them. It's lossless, so once you convert them to WAV files, you have the same as the original. Just convert your WAVs to FLAC files, upload them, let DM convert the uploaded FLACs to WAVs, and make the CD from them. Ryan seems to know a bit about lossless Burn the WAVs to a CD and mail them, not email, normal mail, of the actual CD with the WAV on them, no use in wasting an hour for each song. Also, another way to transfer them, if uploading them to DM will be a prob and mail is not an option, is to take all the FLAC files of your songs, zip them, and put them on P2P.
victorsskull	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 7:10 PM I dont have a cd burner, what about the ones that dont have a cd burner. and what the hell is a flac. we are not all computer geniuoses.
Jennae	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 8:15 PM I have a dial up and so what big deal...ya gotta push the DL button before you run to get some coffee, use the bathroom.. get back sit down, oops damn need a snack... quick preperation... eat half of your snack on the way back to the desk and BAM!! your Done!
Expose	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 9:16 PM Definition of a FLAC; You take the WAV file, which is the original song file. You make it into a FLAC file, just as you make an MP3 file, just with a different program. It'll be half the size, yet be the exact same as the original. So you can transfer the song to DMusic, with no loss of quality, and smaller. And Jennae... ympathy: I had to deal with dial-up for months, I had to buy another m ouse(by the third month, I had bashed the old one )
victorsskull	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 9:33 PM ok but do we all want to add another program to our computers and is it free or will this program cost us. tell me more please
Expose	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 9:54 PM dbpoweramp with the plug-in for FLAC, that's the easiest most user friendly one, and it works flawlessly :) " id="33757">ahem F-R-E-E Let's see, there's dbpoweramp with the plug-in for FLAC, that's the easiest most user friendly one, and it works flawlessly
victorsskull	Date: February 16, 2003 @ 11:30 PM ah thats more like it=D
Jennae	Date: February 17, 2003 @ 4:50 PM So what exactly seems to be looking good for an option so far? What are our best ideas up so far?
Expose	Date: February 17, 2003 @ 11:29 PM lossless, so it'll be the same as the original) format, so it's the same as the WAV and smaller, to save space, then have DM convert them into WAV(original) files and make the CD from them. 2) Burn your song to a CD in WAV(original) format, and mail it to DM. DM will take the tracks off of your CD, and put them into the compilation CD. " id="33848">Here are the options; 1) Upload your songs to the DM "bulletproof" ( ) server, in FLAC(smaller but lossless, so it'll be the same as the original) format, so it's the same as the WAV and smaller, to save space, then have DM convert them into WAV(original) files and make the CD from them. 2) Burn your song to a CD in WAV(original) format, and mail it to DM. DM will take the tracks off of your CD, and put them into the compilation CD.
Elu	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM I'm going to maintain that MP3's recorded at 192 kbs is more than adequate and it is in fact CD quality. (wanna arm wrestle over it... hahaha??). Honestly, I have not heard a complaint yet from anything I have mastered. I use mp3's for copies. I do use wav's too but damn they are just sooooooooo huuuuge!!
Expose	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 11:35 AM 192k is cd quality, for certain conditions and speakers. If you're using normal computer speakers, even 160k can be cd quality. 128k can be on some songs in a crappy speaker setup, if you don't know what to listen for, and it's a normal song. 256k is CD quality for normal songs, but there are some clips the developers made themselves, that MP3 even at 320k, completely garbles up. I'm just being safe, for when this CD gets put into those speakers DJs use that're bigger than your car, then those tiny little misperfections, will show. Not everyone will hear this CD on computer speakers or a normal stereo system. And yes, I do hate WAVs, especially on a 20 GB hard drive.
Jennae	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 1:32 PM What if we specially custom design One CD for Thasp to take to his DJ party and throw down on some kick azz speakers with the heavy bass. =P
Expose	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 1:45 PM Nice idea, that custom one could be free too
RyanS	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 4:04 PM Nah that custom CD would cost you $100, just for the time and pain you put us all through
Jennae	Date: February 18, 2003 @ 5:05 PM I say 200! j/k
Expose	Date: February 19, 2003 @ 8:10 PM
Jennae	Date: February 20, 2003 @ 12:05 AM ...don't worry Thasp, will get artist to donate their 7 cents a copy to pay for your special addition...
Jennae	Date: February 21, 2003 @ 5:05 PM I can't believe thasp journal... This mean we can keep our 7 cents!! yeah baby!! So where exactly are we on a verdict here with the sound on direction an quality?
Expose	Date: February 21, 2003 @ 7:06 PM Verdict; as long as there's sound, good enough.
Veracohr	Date: March 16, 2003 @ 8:22 PM I'm new here, but I hope you'll value my opinion on this anyway. If the debate is still going on whether to make it a regular CD or a data CD with mp3 files: It would have to be a Red Book standard Audio CD. Well, it wouldn't HAVE to be, but if you want it to sell (and hence make money for DMusic, the plan), it has to be an audio CD. Much of the music-buying public has only the vaguest clue what an mp3 is. Those who know, and make use of mp3s, are likely to know about this site already. In addition to making money for DMusic, you want this CD to bring new listeners here, right? In that case, you sell them a CD, in which is a statement to the effect that you can get this music FREE, just by going to this website. They will come, and if they want, they will learn what an mp3 is. If they don't want to learn what an mp3 is and how to use it, at least they've already bought the CD. If you're serious about helping DMusic out, go Thasp's route of sending the file with lossless compression, or bite the bullet and spend $2 to send a CD to whomever. If you're serious about this, don't try to skate by doing as little work as possible to make it happen. Be active. BassNinjaEnigma had a good point about different genres having completely different sounds. So that's a consideration to take if there's still debate about whether make one or many CDs. And regarding what Ryan S. said about avoiding mastering destroying dynamics: that trend in today's music is the fault of the producers mostly. The RIAA has nothing to do with that. Producers want the music to be loud. And this issue is another to take into consideration when deciding on one CD or many. Some genres, like hip hop, electronic and metal, generally have little dynamics to begin with, so mastering loud isn't much a problem. But other genres like acoustic, jazz, country and such would be destroyed by the same mastering process. And you want a CD to sound uniform, not using different mastering styles within a single CD. And another thing to mention: if these songs are going to be mastered specifically for this compilation, it should be made clear that the artists should send an UNMASTERED file/CD. Mastering an already mastered song can be detrimental to the sound quality. Any comments on what I've said? Veracohr
pog	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 12:54 AM It's an interesting argument, whether to use 192k mp3pro or 128k fraunhoffer, or another lossless format. I think it should be governed by whatever the user submits in. You could have the fancy pants cable heads upload in wave format, and you could have the little ppl submit in 320kmp3 or flac. This would be the most acceptable compromise, dontchya think... any files recieved can/could/would, and should be converted to a wav and re-mastered before burning to album anyways. jmho
johnnygnote	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 1:09 AM Why not both, audio and data
johnnygnote	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 1:10 AM Why not both, audio and data You could have to sections on the cd one pure audio the other data. jmo
leflaw	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 1:16 AM Hmmmm. The mastering issue is interesting, but I like "eclectic" music, so there has to be a way of mastering hip hop and non-hip hop on the same disk without sounding weird.
pog	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 1:23 AM You gotta master the final burn. Thats how you make all the tracks sound normal/in context. I use t-racks, cos it has a cool analog limiting/compressor thing going on, but anything will do it... the trick it to use the same system with the same monitor settings on the master.
pog	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 1:24 AM ...preferably dialed flat.
asskiller	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 2:26 AM i think all the songs should be pitch-shifted an octave in addition to being put through a heavy distortion/overdrive filter. this way optimum consistency will be achieved.
Expose	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 7:18 AM Yep, they think louder is better, and it really, really isn't. If people want louder, they raise the friggen volume switch :\|." id="37063">"Producers want the music to be loud." Yep, they think louder is better, and it really, really isn't. If people want louder, they raise the friggen volume switch .
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 7:38 AM compressor. does it for me, when i can be bothered to sit there and fine tune the volume but generally i normalise the whole song, check for any large bursts that might clip or otherwise mess with the compressor, then i just keep adding dBs until i start hearing the compressor going nuts, then ease it off
ChillinBuzz	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 7:40 AM it bothered me for years that i could write a tune and it wouldnt even peak an EQ meter anywhere and then i'd play a label song and the bars would be hammering the top nearly all the time...
Jennae	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 9:46 AM ahh I am so gald to see this thread coming up again, now if I could just get the design/ artwork one going too. Still looking for CD designs, artist take heed.
Acumen	Date: March 17, 2003 @ 10:46 AM finally, my chance to shine!
Expose	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 2:50 PM My journal has something on this today
Jennae	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 3:26 PM coming!
Jennae	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 3:29 PM good info indeed Thasp says: I wanted to see all the results of the stuff I did(below) for myself. It was easier than expected. ABX(blind listening test) test results. 8/10 meaning I told the original from the MP3 8 out of 10 times. The test is run by a program with an X, B, and A button; you play X, then you play A and B to see which one is X. The X file may be the compressed or the original, you don't know. MP3 --alt preset CBR 192k(best 192k CBR setting) 9/10. --alt preset CBR 224k(best 224k CBR setting) 8/10. --alt preset CBR 256k(best 256k CBR setting) 10/10 --alt preset CBR 320k(best 320k CBR setting) 10/10 Ogg Vorbis (let it be said, that Ogg Vorbis made me listen a lot harder than MP3 at these bitrates to see which was better, so despite being distinguishable from the original, it did sound a lot better than an MP3 at the same sort of setting) -q6(192k VBR setting) 9/10 -q7(224k VBR setting) 10/10(hard) -q8(256k VBR setting) 8/10(very hard) -q9(320k VBR setting) 6/10(extremely hard, I probably told it from the original a few times but for the most of it, I was just guessing) MPC Standard 3/10 MP3, held pathetic results. At 320k, I was picking them out easy. Ogg Vorbis, while still distinguishable from the original, confused me a lot more than MP3! Even though I could pick it out, with MP3, I was just hitting the button as soon as I heard it, Ogg Vorbis made me actually listen hard. There was no need for anymore on MPC, as you can see it killed me on it's standard mode. The standard MPC was 57KB, which is smaller than any file tested but the original, standard is a VBR said to be around 140k-180k(or 230k). MPC, killed me. Anyway, I can conclude something from this; the rumors of Ogg Vorbis being a low bitrate codec are true, but that doesn't mean it still isn't better for higher bitrates. MPC, is even more propriatery than MP3 in a sense, yet it still killed MP3. Conclusion; I am MPC's bitch . Used to encode; MP3- LAME 3.92 Ogg Vorbis - version 1 MPC - version 1.14 How did I do it? I cheated. Well, not cheat, but I used a clip of audio that can screw up pretty much any codec(well, not MPC seeing this), at any bitrate, c44. It's only 498KB in WAV form, if anyone wants it, I can email it easy.
JFF	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 3:39 PM Yeah, had a look at that. I'm betting Jennae doesn't wanna use ogg tho!
Jennae	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:11 PM I'm not mixing the CD dearie So actually it's moe Larry's decision than it is mine. I'm just trying to get people to gather informations and create discussion and ideas for our best bets. This is hardly my department. But as for artwork, that I could help with But I am busy so hence I am also seeking others for designing the CD. But we are lacking in efforts there too. I shall push harder on these issues though once we have the final songs selected. Then it will be crunch time. Keep the ideas and dicussion open though fellas! Like it!
JFF	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:16 PM My art skills are about as good as my mixing , If you want a CD cover that looks like an entry to a blue peter competition (under 8's section), I can help!
Expose	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:17 PM Monkey's Audio and transfer them online. :nod:" id="37488">Ogg Vorbis sucked along with MP3. WAVs are too big to transfer. Convert the WAVs into something *lossless* like FLAC or Monkey's Audio and transfer them online.
Expose	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:18 PM :nod:" id="37489">"Monkey’s Audio is a fast and easy way to compress digital music. Unlike traditional methods such as mp3, ogg, or lqt that permanently discard quality to save space, Monkey’s Audio only makes perfect, bit-for-bit copies of your music. That means it always sounds perfect – exactly the same as the original. Even though the sound is perfect, it still saves a lot of space. (think of it as a beefed-up Winzip™ for your music) The other great thing is that you can always decompress your Monkey's Audio files back to the exact, original files. That way, you'll never have to recopy your CD collection to switch formats, and you'll always be able to recreate the original music CD if something ever happens to yours."
Jennae	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:24 PM how do i find this monkeys uncle or whatever, must here more
JFF	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:25 PM Comparison chart looks impressive. They are still gonna be big files though.
Expose	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:26 PM The word monkey's Audio, I made into a URL. Jennae=Blind. Just kidding!
Jennae	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:31 PM well at least you can understand my post in a thread unlike the Peeve's thread =P Thasp= senseless babble kust kidding!
Expose	Date: March 19, 2003 @ 4:42 PM Noooooo... like no one knows that already .... . There's also a dBpowerAMP plug-in for it, if you use that program for encoding already.

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: