[access-uk] Re: Music files
- From: "Ray's Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:28:02 -0000
Thank you Kevin, and I did post a correction re. not having to uncompress
lossless audio
before playing. The WMA lossless format I didn't know about, but I guess that
being
Microsoft it has got scope for DRM as well as ID tags.
I should say my interest is mainly in very high quality personal use at home
and maybe
transfering high quality audio of my own creation for burning onto Cd at other
locations.
Trouble is though for that I'd probably need a more costly connection allowing
fast upload
times.
From Ray
I can be contacted off-list at:
mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of Kevin Lloyd
Hi Ray.
You don't need to uncompress a lossless format file - it's compressed in
much the same way as lossy formats. The difference is that the compression
does not apply any psychoacoustic algorithms to throw away parts of the
music that the encoder thinks you either can't hear or don't care about.
WMA lossless is supported by far more than any other lossless format,
excluding WAV but, of course, has the advantage over WAV of supporting ID3
tags.
Regards.
Kevin
E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray's Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
> Not sure folks if you might not be a bit on the wrong track here.
>
> My understanding of lossless audio formats is that they work rather like
> zip files, i.e.
> they have to be uncompressed before playing them. I don't think playback
> is like MP3 or
> other copanded formats. If I'm right, then the resulting umcompressed
> file should be a .wav
> or maybe AIFF file, which would be CD quality or higher, depending on the
> original sampling
> rate and bit depth of the file.
>
> I shall go again and look at such formats as Monkeys and flack - however
> they are spelt -
> because this is of interest to me for transfering files to be burnt as CD
> audio.
>
> From Ray
> I can be contacted off-list at:
> mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Andy Collins
>
>
> Kevin and Barry, thanks for the clarification, it was Microsoft that
> clamed
> Lossless files produced superior quality sound to MP3; I'm with you Barry,
> I
> have always found MP3 at 192 KBPS to be my preferred listen over similar
> WMA
> files.
>
> Flack I haven't heard about before, and maybe before I go there, what I'd
> really like to do is find the Driver that will enable me to play my
> downloaded DRM files on the Phone.
> -
>
> Andy
> ----- 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
Other related posts:
