Hello All
I need your help in my project. Actually we are working on motorola project. And in our project, we need 8 KHz, 64 Kbps MP3 MONO tune. I need it urgently because our work is pending due to its unavailability. So please post it on this website if anyone is having it.
Thanks in advance
Parashar Dave

I use Audio Hijack Pro on my Mac to "re-record" the RealAudio files to Apple's AAC format, 64 kbps, mono. I believe the proprietary AAC is mp4. The cool thing about it is that it's "bookmarkable," which means that when I shut down the iPod, or change to a different file, I can start right from where I left off listening in the middle of the show. The downside is that it's time consuming to convert it from RealAudio (re-records in real time). I must also add that the AAC files are superior to all of the samples you provided.
With all that said, thank you for the move to offer the show in mp3! Now I don't have to go through the time-consuming process of converting from RA. My choice would be Link 9. I guess I'll just have to pay attention to where I am in the show before I turn off the iPod.

Hi Jimmy - nice that you switch to mp3 so that I don't have to convert real audio for the ipod. I found link 4 very good, i like stereo. But if mono must be link 6 and 8 was fine. I use the VCL-mediaplayer, since i want Windows Media Player for relevant radio and realaudio for EWTN, all going on nonstop but only one with sound.

I am so glad you are doing this! I think link 9 sounds the best. Since I moved to a new time zone I no longer get to listen to the show on my ride home from work (but thank God for Sirius!) I have been forced to download a bunch of show in the .ra format convert them to .mp3 and then burn them on a CD so I can listen in the car. You will be saving me a step and I'll get much better sound quality! This is great!

I realize you're trying to cover as large an audience as possible, however please don't skimp on the sound quality.
I'm blogging here as a new iPod user. The lower quality (smaller file) mp3 file simply won't do. They sound terrible on headphones.
Those with dialup still will have the Realplayer files available to them.
If you decide to go with the lower file sized MP3's, there will be not be a need to keep your Realplayer file library. No one (almost no one..)will listen to them. They'll automatically go to the lower quality MP3 files.
My vote it to make the MP3's has high a quality file as possible. Dont' worry too much about file size.
trobles +<>

Thx for asking, and thx for enabling (at least manual) podcasting. This will really help!
As for formats, why not use vbr? For the kind of material here it would mostly (and automatically) use the appropriate lower bit rates, but it could still occasionally burst higher to gain the appropriate harmonics.
Net net, it would sound much better but still be fairly economical on bits. Personally, I rip everything with about a 224 kbs vbr, which for spoken material (such as Fr. Corapi discs etc.) ends up generally very compact. For example his personal testimony ends up about 69 MB. If that's too big for your goals, you could always do 128 kbs vbr, which would probably end up about the same sizes as the samples you've provided, but generally sound much better than the fixed formats (mono or stereo).
You probably already know this, but the lame encoder is both free and does a terrific job with vbr.
Have you considered posting two files? You could optimize one for the very small and have another who'd rather optimize for quality.
But most of all, thx for moving in this direction. I was just wondering whetjer EWTN was considering this for their shows, so this was a nice surprise.

The smallest, link 5, sounded very good to me--and was definitely clearer compared with the Real Player files I'd been used to. I am listening at my computer, but I have a fan blowing on "high" speed, two computers humming in here, and a window open with lots of cars driving by (so it's a little noisy in here). Still, Link 5 is pretty clear. I have good computer speakers (not the best, but not those tiny tinny-sounding ones), so maybe that's why it sounded better to me than it did to a couple of others.(? - just a guess)
I do have DSL, but it's probably the slowest DSL out there and faster DSL isn't available in my little village. In my case, I prefer Link 5 at 9.5MB and hope it can be an option for slower-broadband users. 18MB would really take me a long time to download, especially if my husband is doing his online gaming (we have to share the bandwidth).
For whatever that's worth... :-)

BTW . . . the mono definitely sounds better than the stereo, to my ear. May just be a talk radio thing.

I understand folks with a dial up wanting smaller files. That's cool. But since I'd be listening on my iPod, either on the little headphones or through my car's stereo, I'd prefer link #9. Downloaded in under a minute & sounds great played through iTunes!
Thanks for doing this.

Its just talking, the smaller the file the better, no practical sound quality change will really result.

I have been trying to listen to you on the real player and I have been super frustrated. My player would time out every 1.52 minutes. Therefor I had to wait for the show to be archived. When I downloaded the program then I could hear the whole program. I have Rhapsody as my default player and with the MP3 the sound was great, especially with the stereo, however all of these are great in comparison to my other frustrations. God bless.
Randy Sides

This is truly wonderful. Now I can finally hear Catholic Answers on my iPod! I can't wait till more of the radio shows are converted to .mp3 format! Well, Link 9's got my vote. I don't mind the size of the file, but I'm not sure if your servers can handle all the files being that size. Take care and God bless. :-)

The plan at this point is for Real to also be available. We're adding .mp3s, not getting rid of Real.

Is the plan to entirely replace the current format with an .mp3 or will the RealAudio format still be available? For those of us with dial-up connections, any of these files are impossible to download in a reasonable time. I would be pretty bummed if the file size prohibited my access to the archived shows.

I vote for 9 as my top for sure (filesize and bandwidth are not a concern for me), and 5 as an offering for folks with dial-up or who are concerned about filesize. The difference between the two is significant, but they are the best options considering those two criteria.
'thann
P.S. I figured out that this is really a ploy of Jimmy's to make us listen to that particular broadcast over and over and over...

Link 5 is definitely better than Link 3 and would be my pick for a low bandwidth option.
Link 6 and 7 are decent but I personally would chose 8 or 9 to download. I could only detect a slight difference between 8 and 9 but even with the extra 3 MB, I would choose Link 9.
In summary, I would chose Link 5 as low bandwith option and Link 9 as the high bandwidth option.

Link 5 is definitely better than Link 3 and would be my pick for a low bandwidth option.
Link 6 and 7 are decent but I personally would chose 8 or 9 to download. I could only detect a slight difference between 8 and 9 but even with the extra 3 MB, I would choose Link 9.
In summary, I would chose Link 5 as low bandwith option and Link 9 as the high bandwidth option.

One more thing I wanted to mention: To keep these file sizes in perspective, remember that lots of people out there download entire music albums in mp3 format (often illegally, regrettably). These files are usually encoded in stereo, with a bit rate of at least 128 kbps, and with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. Since one episode of CAL is roughly the same length as a typical album, and since you are looking at encoding in mono and at a much lower bit rate, the file sizes you are looking at are actually pretty small when put in this perspective.

I have't been able to listen to them yet as my company's idiotic IT department (trust me) has decided that all ftp sites are to be blocked. Be aware of this for those of us who like to listen while working at their computer at work.

Jimmy, thanks so much for letting us participate in testing these files!
Here are my comments on each of the new files:
Link 5: This actually sounds better than Link 3. Apparently the higher sample rate (24 kHz vs. 16 kHz) more than compensates for the lower bit rate (24 kbps vs. 40 kbps).
Link 6: Sounds slightly better than link 5.
Link 7: I can barely tell the difference between this and Link 6.
Link 8: This one sounds quite good. Significantly better than link 7.
Link 9: This one is a bit better than Link 8.
Also, some general comments:
1. It seems that encoding at 44.1 kHz doesn't cost you anything in terms of larger file size, so I would *definitely* recommend sticking with 44.1 kHz (contrary to my previous recommendations). It actually may not make much of a difference, because the mp3 encoding algorithm may be stripping out the higher frequencies anyway. However, I would suggest sticking with 44.1 kHz if for no other reason than for maximum compatibility with all the different mp3 software and hardware that is out there (since this is probably the most common sample rate).
2. Definitely stick with mono rather than stereo; it cuts down the file size, and still sounds fine. It's not as if we need to hear your voice panned to the left and Jerry's voice panned to the right or anything like that, so I don't see any downside to using mono.
BOTTTOM LINE: If I had to choose from the above files, I would choose Link 9 hands down. I don't care about the larger file size; I can always start the download and then let it finish in the background while I work on something else. However, the biggest jump in quality seems to be between Link 7 and Link 8, so I hope that you will at least go with the quality of Link 8 (40 kbps, 44.1 kHz, mono).
I hope this helps, and thanks again for letting us give our input.

Link 5 all the way. It sounds great and is small. Us broadband folks can play any of these real time as they download, but keeping it small for dial-up folks is always a kind thing to do (it also saves on disk space for you guys!).

They all sounded fine to me. Honestly, I couldn't tell any difference. Generally I'd say make them smaller rather than larger.
This will be a very good thing. Looking forward to it.

Man, I can't tell--
I didn't like link 5
I liked link 8, I guess the best