|
|
Posted by Eeyore on 12/03/07 01:41
Broadway Blue wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote...
> >>> Jack wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files! I just
> >>>> closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3 is
> >>>> significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
> >>>> with those formats at 128 kbps.
> >>>
> >>> Why are you even bothering with 128 kbps files ? They're a waste of
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what I was thinking about this entire discussion.
> >> WMA (and MP3 and Ogg, etc etc) is what it is. If you don't
> >> like how it sounds on some particular music, then bump the
> >> bitrate or use some other encoding. End of discussion.
> >> Unless you are developing audio compression codecs, in
> >> which case, this is the wrong newsgroup.
> >
> > PC World UK has 250GB drives for just £45.
> >
> > You'll get about 420 CDs on that *uncompressed* for 11 pence each !
> >
> > Why on earth bother with compression ?
>
> Well, if all you own is a 1GB flash MP3 player or a 4 GB iPod Nano, not
> compressing your music would result in having very few tracks on your
> portable player to listen to!!!
But the quality of those is so poor it's no longer a serious consideration
in that application surely ?.
Graham
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|