|
|
Posted by Eeyore on 12/03/07 12:09
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "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!!!
>
> 4 GB = ca. 120 uncompressed songs.
Or ~ 500 compressed songs @ 320 kbps.
Still no need for 128k.
Graham
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|