User talk:Ravedave/FeaturedAudio

FYI, Featured sounds already exists, although it's only in development.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks like it was stillborn, the page was created in 05 and has not had any nominations and does not appear to be linked to from the other featured projects. Hopefully making a media project would help get traffic so that sounds (I like "audio" better) would get nominated. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One other comment.. "Be of high quality. TODO: define. 196kbps minimum?".. This is probably reasonable but should be something to aim for, not require.. if we receive an interesting, quality audio clip that is only 128kbs, there isn't much point in insisting on 196kbs as that will only encourage people to re-encode it at 196kbs which will increase the file size without any actual quality increase. The quality need only be high enough to fully appreciate the content. If the audio is historic and recorded with a low quality device, 96kbs or 128kbs would be more tan enough. As always with this sort of thing (and we have a similar problem with pictures), insisting on minimum quality is difficult. A picture could be 5000x5000px but on closer inspection, it may appear to have been upsized from 500x500! Resolution is only part of it, as is encoding bit-rate with audio. How to compress what I've said into a suscinct guideline is the question! :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)