Hi Thanks for your reply. I totally accept what you say, it was purely a stray thought on my part. Thanks again Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "ROB MEREDITH" <rmeredith@xxxxxxx> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:50 PM Subject: [bookport] Re: A few questions and thoughts about audio filecompression > Donna: > > Compressed files are reencoded at the same bit rate as the original. There = > are various reasons for this; I actually wanted to move up to a slightly = > higher bit rate in some situations, but that was not feasible. > > In short, our stuff works best if we reencode at the same bit rate. = > Believe me, if we stepped down the bit rate, it would just make the file = > sound worse in most situations. For example, you might move from 32,000 to = > 24,000, a serious downgrade. > > Finally, remember that you are actually reencoding the file, so some = > quality loss, never a gain, is inevitable. > > As for battery usage, I just plain don't know. I think there is a = > difference, but how much is beyond me! > > Rob Meredith > > >>> donna.slater@xxxxxxxxxx 09/29/04 05:36AM >>> > Hi > > I'm just curious, but when a file gets compressed so that it plays faster = > on > the Bookport, is it re-encoded at the same bit rate as the original file = > or > is a lower bit rate used? If it is re-encoded at the same bit rate, would > it be very complicated to give the user an option to encode at a lower bit > rate, so using less space on the card? Also, does the bit rate of a file > have any effect on the amount of battery usage needed to process the file? > I guess what I am wondering is if a lower bit rate uses less battery = > power? > > Thanks once again for such a great list. > > Donna Slater > > > > >