Posted by Arny Krueger on 12/03/07 11:26

"Broadway Blue" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote in message
news:fivgd5$foq$1@reader01.news.esat.net
> 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. It's gotta be about greediness or
laziness.

[Back to original message]