[DoeJury]

So I'm having promo copies of my band's album printed up. I have found the most convenient and cost effective method for duplication is a place that allows you to upload the songs and artwork.

So I've been comparing MP3 quality between 100% VBR and 320kps.

The 320kps is obviously a larger file, and thus would take more of my time to upload- even on cable.

From what I understand though, the 100% VBR would be more accurate of a duplication and result in no loss of low end and dynamic range. The 100% VBR mp3 is also a smaller file.

Is it my understanding correctly that kps mp3s scan the music at that rate with little shots in rapid succession at that rate? And that the variable bit rate ones take big snap shot, like a picture, and then copy it?

Am I wrong?

I've listend to at least a dozen songs, ripped into both 100% VBR and 320kps, and as near as I can tell, it's completely undetectable to the human ear.

Suggestions? Advice?

[Graymalkin]

Send the company a CD-R with your music on it in an uncompressed (WAV, AIFF). While a high quality MP3 made into a CDA file might be hard for me to notice, the MP3 or AAC encoder I run it through in order to stick it on my iPod or something will notice. As will their decoder. Say you make the best sounding damn MP3 ever, if they run it through a crappy decoder to output it to an audio CD you've wasted your effort. It'd be much harder to break your audio if they were just duplicating your CDs from a CD-R master.