[access-uk] Re: Music files
- From: "Kevin Lloyd" <kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:55:51 -0000
Hi.
I guess music is a subjective matter but I ripped all of my collection into
MP3 at 320 kbps and just wasn't happy with the boxed in sound and lack of
low and high frequencies. It's true that MP3 at 192 kbps on a portable
player sounds as good as anything else but I should've said I'm playing my
music through £4 grands worth of Linn hi-fi and believe me, you can
certainly appreciate the lossless formats when you're putting the music
through quality components.
As for disc space, well, just bought a 400GB hard drive for less than £200
so I don't see that's too great a sacrifice for keeping music exactly at the
same quality that it was burned onto the CD in the first place.
Regards.
Kevin
E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Paddy" <mygroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
> Kevint his is all very true.
>
> The trouble with alot of the lossless compression formats though is
> either,
>
> A. They dont' sound as good. or
> B. In formats such as flack who do sound as good if not better, very
> little
> portible units support their playback.
>
> Mainly because codecs aren't written for them or can't be because the
> information needed to write the codecs isn't in the public domain. i.e.
> the
> companys won't tell people the info they need to write the codecs.
>
> WMA imho does not sound as good as mp3. I find there's alot of treble in
> WMA and mp3 sounds more natural.
>
> Als I find navigating through an mp3 more seemless than wma on the comuter
> with winamp and my Iriver h340.
>
> You notice the difference between wma and mp3 in really good audio
> speakers
> or headphones from somebody like Zenhiser.
>
> Andy, I'm guessing your thinking of the amount of music you can get on
> your
> phone?
>
> if you can get a plugin or player for the phone that can play flack I'd go
> for it.
>
> Don't re-encode mp3s though, re-rip or re-download in an uncompressed
> format
> or you will notice quality of the audio suffering.
>
> I encode my mp3s at 192 44 natural stereo and don't feel there's anything
> wrong with that. Let alone enough to make me switch to a format that's
> not
> going to offer as compressed files and thus less files I can fit on a
> smaller storage medium.
> Just some thoughts.
> Dj paddy
> Ôà
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Lloyd" <kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:40 PM
> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
>
>
> Hi Andy.
>
> It's absolutely true that lossless formats will produce a better quality
> music file than MP3. MP3 is a lossy format and so throws away some of the
> music to compress the file right down to the smallest size possible.
> Lossless formats such as WMA lossless and FLAC will produce a much larger
> file than MP3 because they do not throw away any of the musical content.
> An MP3 file can be encoded at a maximum bit rate of 320 kbps whereas a
> lossless format will encode the same file at around 900 to 1000 kbps so
> it's
> likely to be 3 times larger than the equivalent MP3. The lossless file
> will
> be smaller than the equivalent uncompressed WAV file which is typically
> encoded around the 1300 kbps mark but will certainly not be smaller than
> lossy formats such as MP3, OGG and the like.
>
> Regards.
>
> Kevin
> E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Collins" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Access-Uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:09 PM
> Subject: [access-uk] Music files
>
>
>> Hi all - Does anybody know about using Lossless as oppose to MP3 for
>> music
>> files? I think Lossless is supposed to produce smaller files than MP3,
>> but
>> with better sound quality?
>> -
>> Andy
>> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
>> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
>> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
>> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ** and in the Subject line type
>> ** unsubscribe
>> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
>> ** immediately-following link:-
>> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
>> ** or send a message, to
>> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>>
>>
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
