New granular synth: The Mangle

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

low quality/compressed audio files.

"compressed" and "low quality" are not necessarily synonymous, though they can be. i would be interested to know if there is a happy medium. i know where that exists for most listeners, but not for granular synths

[Lesha]

FLAC maybe?

[wagtunes]

In the digital domain, one you've taken the sound source and mangled it anyway, there is no discernible difference.

I totally disagree, especially when transposing granulated samples downwards by some octaves the aliasing gets extreme with low quality/compressed audio files.

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

But by all means, you can send me the $300 a month it's going to cost me to run a dedicated server to sell packs with 100 plus wav files at 10 meg a pop.

And I'm sure everybody will just love downloading that monstrosity as well.

[Greg Houston]

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

Since always. It's an audio format for kids on their iPods and laptops listening with earbuds; not for professional use.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

Since always. It's an audio format for kids on their iPods and laptops listening with earbuds; not for professional use.

[wagtunes]

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

Since always. It's an audio format for kids on their iPods and laptops listening with earbuds; not for professional use.

Well, for these libraries, for their intended purpose and how the patches were developed, there is virtually no difference. So I'm not going to worry about it.

Spunds perfectly fine on my Yamaha $200 a piece monitors.

[Greg Houston]

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

Since always. It's an audio format for kids on their iPods and laptops listening with earbuds; not for professional use.

The shrug (I don't care emoticon) would make more sense than rolling the eyes.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

And since when are MP3s at 320 KBPS low quality?

Since always. It's an audio format for kids on their iPods and laptops listening with earbuds; not for professional use.

The shrug (I don't care emoticon) would make more sense than rolling the eyes.

it really wouldn't

[Sampleconstruct]

But by all means, you can send me the $300 a month it's going to cost me to run a dedicated server to sell packs with 100 plus wav files at 10 meg a pop.

100 GB download at very fast dl speeds on my amazon server costs me roundabout 14 bucks = USD, I don't know where you get that $ 300 figure from. An there seems to be no objection against downloading many GBs for a big library, people are used to it nowadays.

[wagtunes]

But by all means, you can send me the $300 a month it's going to cost me to run a dedicated server to sell packs with 100 plus wav files at 10 meg a pop.

100 GB download at very fast dl speeds on my amazon server costs me roundabout 14 bucks = USD, I don't know where you get that $ 300 figure from. An there seems to be no objection against downloading many GBs for a big library, people are used to it nowadays.

Well, I don't have that kind of money to support it. I'm a small independent developer with limited funds. I plan on making a 350 patch, 150 to 175 sound file library. If this sells well (uncertain at this point) I won't be able to afford to sell it unless I charge a ridiculous price for it, which I will not do.

[Sampleconstruct]

Spunds perfectly fine on my Yamaha $200 a piece monitors.

But you're producing those libs for others not just yourself, no? If you want to sell many of those, go for high quality, just saying.

[Sampleconstruct]

But by all means, you can send me the $300 a month it's going to cost me to run a dedicated server to sell packs with 100 plus wav files at 10 meg a pop.

100 GB download at very fast dl speeds on my amazon server costs me roundabout 14 bucks = USD, I don't know where you get that $ 300 figure from. An there seems to be no objection against downloading many GBs for a big library, people are used to it nowadays.

Well, I don't have that kind of money to support it. I'm a small independent developer with limited funds. I plan on making a 350 patch, 150 to 175 sound file library. If this sells well (uncertain at this point) I won't be able to afford to sell it unless I charge a ridiculous price for it, which I will not do.

Well, then just do it your way, actually I was only trying to give some advice, I wasn't in for an argument MP3 vs. wavs. Anybody should be able to hear the difference between a 320 k MP3 and 48 Khz/24 Bit wav. If not, then cool, that saves some HD space.

[wagtunes]

Spunds perfectly fine on my Yamaha $200 a piece monitors.

But you're producing those libs for others not just yourself, no? If you want to sell many of those, go for high quality, just saying.

In order to sell these and make any kind of profit, I would have to sell at a price that would ultimately price myself out of the market altogether.

A demo will be made. Prospective buyers can listen to the demo and decide if they think it sounds good enough as is or not. If not, at least I'm not out any money getting a dedicated server (my current hosting won't support the file size with any considerable number of downloads)

It is simply not an option.

Unless of course you would like to donate to the cause.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Or you could base your presets on an existing pack of audio files already available on the net

[Sampleconstruct]

Spunds perfectly fine on my Yamaha $200 a piece monitors.

But you're producing those libs for others not just yourself, no? If you want to sell many of those, go for high quality, just saying.

In order to sell these and make any kind of profit, I would have to sell at a price that would ultimately price myself out of the market altogether.

A demo will be made. Prospective buyers can listen to the demo and decide if they think it sounds good enough as is or not. If not, at least I'm not out any money getting a dedicated server (my current hosting won't support the file size with any considerable number of downloads)

It is simply not an option.

Unless of course you would like to donate to the cause.

But there are no costs for a "dedicated" amazon server, storing a few hundred GB on amazon will cost you exactly 2 bucks per month, plus the costs for the downloads. If you don't sell, you don't pay, and storage for a single library will cost you a few cent per month.