[access-uk] Re: Music files
- From: "Andy Collins" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:11:07 -0000
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
>
>
** 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
====================
This email has been verified as Virus free
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
====================
====================
This email has been verified as Virus free
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
====================
__________ NOD32 1.1551 (20060521) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
** 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:
