[112kbps-320kbps MP3 vs. FLAC VGRemixes?]

Torrents: there goes 95% the money motivation requirement. I'd offer them individually but gradually move toward bulk torrents, since in utorrent you can just pick and choose which songs you want.

Torrents only work when the files are in high demand. As Chavous said, you'll probably be seeding virtually yourself.

[112kbps-320kbps MP3 vs. FLAC VGRemixes?]

I don't see it as being worth your time or money. I don't believe that there's a market out there for people who want to download lossless mixes (or even mixes encoded at 320kbps MP3).

Your bandwidth costs would be horrendous, too. Grabbing a CD's worth of lossless music would easily be 200-300MB, maybe more. If 100 people download a CD in a month, you'll easily break the maximum bandwidth permitted by most entry-level hosting providers.

[112kbps-320kbps MP3 vs. FLAC VGRemixes?]

If I encode stuff nowadays, I use AAC. Yeah, it's proprietary, but it's also a standard.

Also, the encoding format is not Ogg. It's Vorbis. Ogg is simply a wrapper (that's why you can get Ogg/Vorbis or Ogg/FLAC).

CompyFox, I don't really think the poster is trying to start a war of which format is better, but rather, trying to solve a problem that is a neat idea, but not really a problem, so to speak.

[112kbps-320kbps MP3 vs. FLAC VGRemixes?]

It depends on what you want to do with the FLAC file. If you're just listening to it, it might be overboard. But if you want to transcode it to fit on your iPod... well...