Best lossy format and bitrate for highest quality but small file size? [Archive]

carbonize

11-25-2004, 05:31 PM

A slight variation on the usual "which lossy format is best" question. I like my music files to be small, a throwback to my first laptop which only had a 3 gig harddrive and my current laptop which only has a 6 gig hard drive (totally irrelevant as I listen on my desktop). Anyway I ask you, the audiophiles, what would your choice of lossy format and bitrate be if you were after a balance of small file size but staying as faithful, audio wise, to the original.

ps. I could of made this a poll but with all the possible variations I'd need an entire site just for the options.

pps. I find it funny when people who are discussing lossy formats say that file size is not a problem and so they use a high bitrate. If file size isn't a problem why are you using lossy formats and not lossless like flac?

Roj

11-26-2004, 03:18 AM

pps. I find it funny when people who are discussing lossy formats say that file size is not a problem and so they use a high bitrate. If file size isn't a problem why are you using lossy formats and not lossless like flac?
Portability, portability and did I mention portability?

How many set-top DVDs do you see supporting flac?

Portable players?

Car stereos?

'nuff said.

carbonize

11-26-2004, 06:09 AM

They support CDA though :chinese: and you didn't answer my actual question.

Todd The Kiwi

11-26-2004, 06:56 AM

.mp3 @ 44,100 16bit.

if it's lower/lesser than these values i can hear it.
no good being small if it sounds like shit, like a chihuahua ha ha ha

Heigar

11-26-2004, 07:52 AM

I think he is looking for 128,192,VBR,CBR......

I use mp3 @ 192 or VBR=variable bitrate(which will give you a bigger file size)

carbonize

11-26-2004, 08:02 AM

Well at present I am using OGG at .5 quality VBR but I'm curious as to other peoples opinions. My choice is probably partly affected by the fact that we used to get told that 128k MP3 were the best balance between quality and size. But of course this was years ago when MP3 was the only lossy format. Would I notice much difference upping the quality to .6?

Heigar

11-26-2004, 08:14 AM

Maybe just a little bigger file(if at all),but in sound quality probably not.

Roj

11-26-2004, 09:58 AM

They support CDA though :chinese: and you didn't answer my actual question.
Sure I did. I can crowd several hours of music onto media for a portable device . Try doing that with CDA. For example, when I went to the Dominican Republic this summer, I brought exactly two CDs with me for use in my Panasonic Shockwave CD / MP3 player. They comprised over 16 (yes, 16) hours of music at a minimum bitrate of 192. Had I brought the appropriate CDA format media instead...

Also, MP3 has exposed me to a LOT of music over the years that I would never have heard otherwise.

Roj

11-26-2004, 10:04 AM

My choice is probably partly affected by the fact that we used to get told that 128k MP3 were the best balance between quality and size. But of course this was years ago when MP3 was the only lossy format. Would I notice much difference upping the quality to .6?
My standards are ogg Q6 and MP3 192. I won't do anything less - the quality loss becomes *too* noticeable if I do. It's all in the subtleties. bear in mind that mp3 comprises background music in the house and car and I'm limited by my choice of headphones for my portable (Koss SportaPros) and the speaker system in my SUV (Monsoon).

carbonize

11-26-2004, 10:35 AM

Hmmmmmmmmmm can I be bothered to rerip my cd's to OGG .6 instead of the OGG .5 they are now? Think I may take your advice and keep at 192 and rip my cd's to OGG .6. Now if I obtain some MP3's that are at 256 or over could I convert them to OGG .6 without losing to much or should I just stick to dropping them to 192?

krazyd

11-26-2004, 12:24 PM

Basically the answer is to have a listen for yourself. Do some experimentation with different ogg q's. You may not even be able to tell the difference between q5 and q6. I know I can't for the majority of music I listen to.

A useful technique is to ABX different quality levels against each other and against the original to see if you really are hearing a difference.

Is it absolutely necessary to transcode your mp3's? This will the quality significant damage...

carbonize

11-26-2004, 01:08 PM

Is it absolutely necessary to transcode your mp3's? This will the quality significant damage...

lol no. I know that you shouldn't convert files as each format loses different parts of the audio. I was just wondering if it would be as noticeable if you converted a high bitrate MP3, such as 320, to a mid bitrate OGG such as 128 CBR or .5 VBR

Roj

11-26-2004, 01:14 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm can I be bothered to rerip my cd's to OGG .6 instead of the OGG .5 they are now?
I wouldn't re-rip. Too much trouble for too little gain. :)

Never ever convert between lossy formats - there is always a noticeable quality loss.

carbonize

11-26-2004, 01:49 PM

After reading all your answers I am wondering if I shouldn't just stick with MP3 and a bitrate of 192. Then any MP3's I obtain that are greater bitrate than this I could convert to 192 using DBpoweramp and LAME and anything lower I'd just leave be. To be honest my PC speakers are not that great anyway and when it comes to personal players you can't really get personal headphones that can reproduce sound that faithfully and my main personal is a NetMD and I tend to use LP2 format on there. Also if I stick to MP3 I am guaranteed compatiability with both software and hardware players.

On a similar theme are there any test results out there that compare the different formats at the lower bitrates (ie 64k)? I am lead to believe that at these sort of bitrates the order of quality goes OGG - WMA - MP3 Pro - MP3 (OGG being best). Would you agree with this?

Roj

11-26-2004, 02:30 PM

After reading all your answers I am wondering if I shouldn't just stick with MP3 and a bitrate of 192. Then any MP3's I obtain that are greater bitrate than this I could convert to 192 using DBpoweramp and LAME and anything lower I'd just leave be.
Then you're not reading all the answers. :) NEVER convert a lossy format to another lossy format or even the same lossy format. The quality loss is noticeable.

On a similar theme are there any test results out there that compare the different formats at the lower bitrates (ie 64k)? I am lead to believe that at these sort of bitrates the order of quality goes OGG - WMA - MP3 Pro - MP3 (OGG being best). Would you agree with this?
Wow - that's transistor radio sound. :) I do remember tests done at 128 but I can't recall any lower. I'd suggest using Google.

carbonize

11-26-2004, 02:45 PM

DanTheManPR

11-26-2004, 02:46 PM

I would like to use ogg for portable music - but there aren't too many things that support it.

So I use mp3 at 128k ABR. The loss in sound quality isn't a big deal since I can't tell on my crappy car speakers and crappy headphones.

Roj

11-26-2004, 05:10 PM

I would of thought that if you ripped a cd to 192k you lost a particular portion of the audio and if you ripped the same cd to 128k you'd lose the same portion and then some. Or is lossy encoding more complicated than that? Does it take the whole audio for that time and channel and work out a compressed version of it? So if some of the audio is already missing then the resulting compression is not as good as if all the audio was present at the start?

What is the closest MP3 bitrate to CD quality?I remember a mod on 3DSS way back when saying the same thing and saying that the loss would be negligible. I remember thinking "I'm glas I don't have to listen to her music". :) You have to remember that the entire dynamic structure of the music changes when you run it through a psychoacoustic model for lossy. Lossy works on removing things it thinks the ear won't hear, such as a soft harmonic in the music immediately following a loud sound. While the changes will be smaller than they were when the original wav file was encoded, new changes will still take place and more audio information will be lost.

In theory, the closest mp3 encoding to CD is 320. Will you hear the difference above 224 on multimedia speakers? Yes, but only if your gear is really good (my Monsoon PM-14 M-Audio Revo are a case in point and the Klipsch and top-line Altec Lansing model will also bring it to light) and your hearing is great, but even then it will be pretty hard to distinguish due to the limited dynamics of multimedia speakers. However, will I hear it on my Martin-Logans? Like Night From Day.

carbonize

11-26-2004, 05:26 PM

You have to remember that the entire dynamic structure of the music changes when you run it through a psychoacoustic model for lossy. Lossy works on removing things it thinks the ear won't hear, such as a soft harmonic in the music immediately following a loud sound. While the changes will be smaller than they were when the original wav file was encoded, new changes will still take place and more audio information will be lost.
Isn't that kind of what I just said?

So when I obtain an MP3 that is encoded at 320k I can safely convert it to 192k because I, like 99.9% of computer owners, don't have top of the range speakers plugged into my computer and therefore wouldn't notice the loss to much.

carbonize

11-26-2004, 05:31 PM

Portability, portability and did I mention portability?

How many set-top DVDs do you see supporting flac?

Portable players?

Car stereos?

'nuff said.
Meant to respond to this properly then forgot. If portability is an issue then surely filesize IS also an issue is it not? I was refering to people who play music on their computers and who claim that file size is not important. You are talking about portability in which case file size IS important. In fact my last question regarding 64k files was partly about portability.

Roj

11-26-2004, 06:43 PM

Isn't that kind of what I just said?

So when I obtain an MP3 that is encoded at 320k I can safely convert it to 192k because I, like 99.9% of computer owners, don't have top of the range speakers plugged into my computer and therefore wouldn't notice the loss to much.It's never safe because quality is lost and that alone rules it out for me. It's also considered poor practice on file distribution mediums. However, you are free to do what you want since it's exclusively (I hope) for your own use and not for redistribution. :)

Roj

11-26-2004, 06:47 PM

Meant to respond to this properly then forgot. If portability is an issue then surely filesize IS also an issue is it not? I was refering to people who play music on their computers and who claim that file size is not important. You are talking about portability in which case file size IS important. In fact my last question regarding 64k files was partly about portability.I can crowd 8 hours of music at 192 and above on a CD that will play on all three of the devices I listed. A standard 700Mb CD holds at least 85 MP3s of that type. For me at least, file size isn't an issue under those conditions. Mind you, I'm not one of those throwing away money on a 128Mb flash player.

matty28carter

11-26-2004, 06:49 PM

A slight variation on the usual "which lossy format is best" question. I like my music files to be small, a throwback to my first laptop which only had a 3 gig harddrive and my current laptop which only has a 6 gig hard drive (totally irrelevant as I listen on my desktop). Anyway I ask you, the audiophiles, what would your choice of lossy format and bitrate be if you were after a balance of small file size but staying as faithful, audio wise, to the original.

i'd say if your going by size to quality then OGG at q4 (128Kb/s) is probably the best bet. I can't tell the difference between ogg and the original over q4 (with some extreme exceptions) anyway. But its up to you to decide. I usually encode everything between q5 and q7 anyway just to make sure.
:silly:

carbonize

11-26-2004, 07:20 PM

Ok just to clear a few things up. Any files I rip/convert are for my own use. It's illegal to share audio files that you do not have the rights to </sarcasm>

I to laugh at people that buy 128meg MP3 players. Specialy since you can get a 512meg one for £45 on ebay and thats with delivery. As I said I have a Net MD for portable listening. Atrac3 may not be the best format but when you're listening on headphones, unless the quality is really bad, you don't notice much difference.

Roj

11-26-2004, 08:29 PM

Ok just to clear a few things up. Any files I rip/convert are for my own use. It's illegal to share audio files that you do not have the rights to </sarcasm>Not in this country, it ain't. File sharing is perfectly legal here. Mind you, we don't have a government that's a slave to the entertainment industry... :) :) :)

I to laugh at people that buy 128meg MP3 players. Specialy since you can get a 512meg one for £45 on ebay and thats with delivery.WOW! Here they're in the $400 range.

Atrac3 may not be the best formatActually it's the worse, right under WMA. Search the forum for a post detailing some tests that were done.

but when you're listening on headphones, unless the quality is really bad, you don't notice much difference.That depends on your headphones. I never use the standard dreck that ships with players - I use Koss SportaPros. They cost about $45 here and blow the doors off anything that ships with a portable player.

carbonize

11-27-2004, 06:54 AM

WOW! Here they're in the $400 range.

<snip>

That depends on your headphones. I never use the standard dreck that ships with players - I use Koss SportaPros. They cost about $45 here and blow the doors off anything that ships with a portable player.

We can get MP3 players cheap because we don't use monopoly money for a currency ;). Actually they get shipped straight from China. Not the best things in the world but more than do the job. The also tend to have built in dictaphone capabilities.

Yes most times the headphones that come with a portable product are dire. Sony do tend to supply reasonable headphones with their equipment though. I am actually using a pair of Sony headphones but I bought these ones seperate. If I'm listening on the move I'm either in work (noisy), out running (not best listening conditions), on my bike (concentrating on road) or walking round the shops.

gsb521

03-10-2005, 10:55 PM

I now can't stand wma, because of qcd's numerous compatibility issues.
I've looked to find the best format. The most popular format here is mp3 (i think).

I've looked on google, and this came up:
test data (http://www.litexmedia.com/article/comparison.html)

I'm basically pretty happy with the quality of wma 128 kbps. What formats and bitrates do you recommend? I want it to be relatively quick with encoding, so ogg is basically out of the picture. File size itself doesn't matter much to me (both in total song memory and in bitrate), and Im willing to go up to 192. What programs should I use to use the encoding? I would use CDex, QCD, or whatever you recommend.
Thanks.

carbonize

03-10-2005, 10:59 PM

gsb521

03-10-2005, 11:04 PM

WOW! That was fast. Thanks for the reply.
I'm using the music on the computer only, not on my minidisc player (which i regret getting - It takes forever to copy all my music to atrac3, and then it can only be played in sonicstage. To avoid having to sit though hours of re-encoding, i copied the files to cd before a reformat. After, it wouldn't accept the files (something to do with copyrights). So, anything currently on my minidisc player isn't going anywhere, because its not backed up on my computer).

Back to the point - I guess I'll conduct my own tests with regard to which bitrate. I'll post the results, but keep in mind that I'm using cheap speakers. Which ripper should I use? Is there any difference with the output between say, QCD and CDex? Or will that change the time it takes?

carbonize

03-10-2005, 11:14 PM

I know what you mean about converting the music. I tend to use LP2 on my minidisc as it's faster and you can get more on the discs. I have it delete the atrac files after uploading them though. I'd recommend a dedicated ripping program such as CDex or DB poweramp as they were made for the one specific task.

gsb521

03-11-2005, 12:09 AM

Ok, did the test. I tried mp3 at 112, 128, 160, and 192 kbps, and to be honest, i could not tell a difference. I think I might have seen a slight drop in quality (sharpness) in 112, but I think its just because I expected it.

I decided to go with 160, just because if I get speakers that can display a difference, I don't want to re-encode everything.

carbonize

03-11-2005, 12:14 AM

If I'm ripping from CD I tend to rip to OGG at .5 quality. If I download it stays at whatever I downloaded it as otherwise I'd lose some more of the quality. It might not be audible but you would always be wondering what is missing. It's not that big a deal for the likes of I who listen to music that tends to be loud. It is rare these days that I get to sit in silence and appreciate the harmonies and melodics of a song. When it coms to testing I'd think classical music was the best sample as it usually contains a wide variety of frequencies and sounds whilst each instrument is still discernible.

rorythedog

03-11-2005, 12:17 AM

256 kbps mp3's using CDeX. That's good enough for me. Like you I also have a number of albums languishing on MD. I don't know if I'll ever hear them again. :cry:

carbonize

03-11-2005, 12:20 AM

Can always download them or plug your MD player into the Line in of your system and encode them that way. I was wondering just now why nobody ever rips audio CD's to CD images :-/ I mean 320 bitrate MP3's are extremely high quality but you will still have lost something.

Roj

03-11-2005, 02:32 AM

For MP3's I'd recommend 160 or 192 for on your PC and 128 for portable. But then when MP3's first came out they always classed 128 as 'near' CD quality and this became the standard most people use. I sent Roj an email showing him a very nice portable MP3 player with OGG support. OGG is recognised as the best format but suffers from lack of hardware support due to a large codec.

I won't use anything less than LAME 3.92 192bit / Stereo / High Quality on my portable MuVo TX FM, my Clarion car deck or my internal server. mind you, I also use Koss SportaPros with the MuVo.

gsb521

03-11-2005, 02:44 AM

Just out of curiosity - the bitrate is measured in kilobytes per second, so why would some formats have larger files for the same song and bitrate?
What affects the file size besides the bitrate?

carbonize

03-11-2005, 02:57 AM

Quality. It depends on how much information the format puts in per second.

Roj

03-11-2005, 03:04 AM

Just out of curiosity - the bitrate is measured in kilobytes per second, so why would some formats have larger files for the same song and bitrate?
What affects the file size besides the bitrate?
Each format has different algorithms and psychoacoustic models for encoding. The models and methods used for ogg are different than mp3, for example. These models have different optimizations and will contain different information. That leads to some variance in the size.

acushla

03-11-2005, 06:39 AM

pps. I find it funny when people who are discussing lossy formats say that file size is not a problem and so they use a high bitrate. If file size isn't a problem why are you using lossy formats and not lossless like flac?

My guess is that they do not use a lossless format like flac simply because there are too few ways to play them outside of the computer they were created on.
Now...to answer your question I first would have to know how you define small. For myself a properly produced mp3 file at 320 kbps is what I choose. I feel that a 1:4 ratio is pretty small...but then I have a hard drive of 160GB partitioned in two. I go the 320kbps route simply because I want the highest possible quality I can get and yet still have a compressed file.

acushla

03-11-2005, 07:03 AM

I... could convert to 192 using DBpoweramp and LAME

You are obviously pretty serious about all of this...as a former user of the method you describe to convert your files I would suggest you try EAC (Exact Audio Copy)...http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ to convert into WAV and then RazorLame to convert the WAV files into mp3. In my opinion there is a definite difference in the way these files sound. Everything you need to know is detailed at this site: http://mp3.radified.com/
If you choose to pursue this course I would be very interested in learning what you have to say about it.

acushla

03-11-2005, 07:07 AM

I can crowd 8 hours of music at 192 and above on a CD that will play on all three of the devices I listed. A standard 700Mb CD holds at least 85 MP3s of that type. For me at least, file size isn't an issue under those conditions. Mind you, I'm not one of those throwing away money on a 128Mb flash player.

How about over 10 hours on a DVD disc...same physical size as a CD...a LOT more music!

acushla

03-11-2005, 07:13 AM

carbonize

03-11-2005, 11:09 AM

No i mean that as I write this £1 will get you $2.31 CAD or $1.92 US. Which is good when I want to buy something such as My hosting (US) but bad when it's time to cash my cheque (notice I spell it correctly) from Google Adsense.

Roj

03-11-2005, 11:26 AM

How about over 10 hours on a DVD disc...same physical size as a CD...a LOT more music!

I haven't tested mp3s on a DVD yet in my player. That amount of music time would be measured in *days*. :)

rorythedog

03-11-2005, 11:35 AM

[QUOTE=carbonize]We can get MP3 players cheap because we don't use monopoly money for a currency ;).QUOTE]

Don't use monopoly money for currency? I'm not hearing a little bitterness over the fact that Canada long ago stopped being a colony of wet, damp Briton and is now a sovereign nation?

Just for the record, it's "Britain", not "Briton". Not that I suscribe to either Nationality. And isn't the Queen your head of state? That rather precludes your being a "Sovereign State" doesn't it? You wouldn't happen to be a bit French, would you? :carrot:

acushla

03-11-2005, 10:14 PM

I haven't tested mp3s on a DVD yet in my player. That amount of music time would be measured in *days*. :)

That raises an interesting question that never occurred to me before. (This seems to happening a lot when you are around.) Given the fact that I have a player that plays regular old two channel Cd's, mp3 files, DVD-AUDIO, DVD-VIDEO, CD-VIDEO, JPEG files and the kitchen sink...I just assumed that the laser was connected to a piece of electronic hardware that differentiated each source and 'adapted' them into a playable stream. (You can tell I'm not very technical...can't you.) What I hear you saying is that there is a possibility that mp3 files recorded on a CD might sound different than the same file recorded on a DVD. Too which I say...how can that possibly be so? A CD looks just like a DVD except for the writing on the label? (This is where that 'silent' part comes in.)

carbonize

03-11-2005, 10:18 PM

An MP3 is an MP3. The only reason it would sound different would be the software/hardware used to decode it, the amplifier, the speakers and what have you. I would assume that a DVD player with MP3 support just passes the file to an internal codec. The storage medium is irrelevant to the quality of the sound.

acushla

03-11-2005, 10:26 PM

[QUOTE=acushla]

Just for the record, it's "Britain", not "Briton". Not that I suscribe to either Nationality. And isn't the Queen your head of state? That rather precludes your being a "Sovereign State" doesn't it? You wouldn't happen to be a bit French, would you? :carrot:

I am writing a letter off to the creators of my spell check program right now. I apologize for the mis-spelling. The Queen as head of state has nothing to do with the sovereignty of a nation. I believe having the Queen as head of state simply shows that we are a member of the commonwealth. Sovereignty, as I understand it (which should immediately raise a red flag and have you leaping toward GOOGLE) is a nation that rules itself...that is...creates its' own laws etc. (I love etc....fools you into thinking I know a lot more that I do. Etc. really means 'logic tells me there is more I just don't know what it is...'

Having been born in Plymouth pretty much ensures there is no French in me...although knowing my mother the way I do...who knows?

PS Suscribe is spelt S-U-B-S-C-R-I-B-E. Maybe you need to write a letter as well.

Roj

03-12-2005, 12:06 AM

What I hear you saying is that there is a possibility that mp3 files recorded on a CD might sound different than the same file recorded on a DVD.

Noooo.

What I am saying is that I have a player that plays mp3s when they are recorded on CD media. I don't know if it will recognize mp3s if they are recorded on DVD media.

carbonize

03-12-2005, 12:12 AM

Having been born in Plymouth pretty much ensures there is no French in meBeing born in the UK pretty much guarantees that there IS French in you. Along with Germanic, Saxon and Nordic plus anyone else who invaded us over the millenia.

acushla

03-12-2005, 12:17 AM

carbonize

03-12-2005, 12:23 AM

Todd The Kiwi

03-12-2005, 12:24 AM

carbonize - you need to czech your spelling man ;)

acushla/rory - a briton comes from england...like carbonize

rory - "You wouldn't happen to be a bit French, would you?"
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha classic.

acushla - "although knowing my mother the way I do...who knows?"
ooh err :paranoid:

S-U-B-S-C-R-I-B-E - is touche' a french word ha ha :bulb:

carbonize - "Being born in the UK pretty much guarantees that there IS French in you."
ouch :knocked-o

this thread is getting good :silly:

acushla

03-12-2005, 12:29 AM

Being born in the UK pretty much guarantees that there IS French in you. Along with Germanic, Saxon and Nordic plus anyone else who invaded us over the millenia.

What?!!! THERE IS FRENCH IN ME...??? WOW...I knew there was something wrong with me...I just didn't know WHAT! Thanks...I am going to march right in to my Psychiatrists office on Tuesday and tell him that by virtue of carbonize I've figured it all out and I won't be seeing him any longer. WOW! I STILL can't believe it. What can I say?

acushla

03-12-2005, 12:33 AM

Noooo.

What I am saying is that I have a player that plays mp3s when they are recorded on CD media. I don't know if it will recognize mp3s if they are recorded on DVD media.

They won't. DVD discs have to be played in players equipped to play DVD's.

I just realized that you are referring to mp3 files...and I was referring to CDA files. That 10 hours just jumped to over 80!

acushla

03-12-2005, 12:35 AM

What I am saying is a computer file is a computer file regardless of the medium it is stored on. If I rip a song into an MP3 and then store that on a CD, a DVD, my USB stick and the harddrive and then play each back on my computer through the same player they will all sound the same.

this was in response to your post where you said
Somewhere along the way it seems to me that your original post has taken a very wide left turn. Originally you asked advice about what lossy files were the rest of us making. I assumed this was because you wanted to make some decisions regarding your own creation of files. Then sometime later you mentioned how you had been creating your mp3 files...to which I suggested you might want to look at an alternative way of making those files which I felt you would find to be better. In that context I then read: If I rip a song into an MP3 and then store that on a CD, a DVD, my USB stick and the hard drive and then play each back on my computer through the same player they will all sound the same.
What I think threw me was your use of the word 'each'.Given the thread of everything that led up to this statement my response indicating 'no, they wouldn't' hinged on the 'rip' and 'each' portion of your statement. What this means is I was saying that a mp3 file created by one method was not going to sound the same as a mp3 file created through another method. Of course...once that file is created it will sound the same...after all...it's the same file. Perhaps you can show me where the left turn was. I was still addressing your original concern. (Or at least I thought I was.) I'm not fighting you carbonize...and I am definitely not trying to be a mister-know-it-all. (Besides...that position has already been filled here at QUINTESSENTIAL.) I was trying to contribute some helpful suggestions that might allow you to make some informed decisions.

I just thought I would share with everybody my mp3 - SACD home system. Like Steve Martin says in his 'Moon Rock' sketch' (Comedy Isn't Pretty)...it still sounds like dodo.' ...and neighbours...always moving in and out. Impresses the women, though. You have no idea how many times I've heard, 'Wow...I NEVER realized how good Britney really is. Do you have any Madonna?!!!'

rorythedog

03-12-2005, 01:19 AM

And I thought Britons came from France. Silly me. :devil:

And just because I miss letters is no excuse to make fun of my missing finger. :hurt:

Todd The Kiwi

03-12-2005, 06:02 AM

rory - "And I thought Britons came from France. Silly me."

i wondered why you didn't mention that, it was the first thing i thought of.

"And just because I miss letters is no excuse to make fun of my missing finger."

ha ha ha ha ha

acushla - "I just thought I would share with everybody my mp3 - SACD home system."

no shit, is that your home rig? far out man :scared:

carbonize

03-12-2005, 06:07 AM

acushla

03-12-2005, 06:07 AM

acushla - "I just thought I would share with everybody my mp3 - SACD home system."

no shit, is that your home rig? far out man :scared:

Oh yeah sure...actually it's my car stero. I just bring it into the house when I'm home so nobody breaks into my car and steals it. You would never know from this picture that it's made out of paper mache, would you? Cool though, eh? You know...somebody owns it...I just thought everybody here would at least like to see it. Perhaps we should start a new thread and submit images of the most awesome sound systems we can find. I really do defy anybody to better this one though.

In case your wondering (which I doubt you are)...eh? is a very Canadian expression. In fact we are famous for it thanks to a little TV show called 'SCTV'. You might find reruns of it on your Comedy Network. Be prepared to laugh.

acushla

03-12-2005, 06:49 AM

What programs should I use to use the encoding? I would use CDex, QCD, or whatever you recommend. Thanks.

If we are talking mp3 here then I would suggest you look into EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and RazorLame. You can find out more through this link: http://mp3.radified.com/

Actually I would recommend that everybody in this forum check this site out. It is a gold mine of information on just about every file known.

rorythedog

03-12-2005, 12:01 PM

If that had been your system I would've suggested your house for the convention. You could have paid all our flights too. :evolved:

acushla

03-12-2005, 01:50 PM

I'm not arguing, I'm just being an antagonstic t**t. I have a reputation to live upto. But yes I see where our wires got crossed.

BTW my comments on English heritage are what I use when talking to narrow minded racist bigots who use the "go back to your own country" insult.

I'm not certain what to write here. I hope I never wrote anything that smacked of the "go back to your own country"...if I did I definitely did not intend it to come out that way. I was just having some fun with you in relation to your referring to our currency as 'monopoly money'.

This is the only forum I am a member of and the first forum I have joined. I can see that writing to people whom you would like to consider friends is a bit of a challenge when the only communication is through the written word. This becomes even more complex as you start to factor in the different cultures and unique ways of expression that are not familiar to us. The one experience that unites us is our love of music and QUINTESSENTIAL Player. I think if we keep about us an awareness of our common interests then learning to have dialogue with each other becomes that much more pleasurable. The other day I was standing at the bus stop and the gentleman beside me started to make small talk about the weather and talked about some experiences his friends in London, England were having with the weather there. Without thinking or missing a beat I started to tell him about what a friend of mine in the Netherlands was experiencing in terms of the weather. Well guess who that was? I have had several conversations with friends and I have told them about things my friends are saying in this forum. You are all like family...and I think it is great that we live in the times we do and are able to have a community of people from all over the world who share the same interests and who take pleasure in sharing their experiences.

carbonize

03-12-2005, 03:37 PM

LOL no I wasn't calling you a racist. I was just pointing out that that particular nugget of information is stored as part of my argument arsenal.

Inthewoods

03-12-2005, 04:17 PM

acushla,

I sincerely wish you luck in your search for a pleasurable interchange of information here or elsewhere on the internet. Although you haven't been on this forum all that long, I always enjoy your posts, particularly the way you articulate your responses, and express your opinions.

As for me, I've found most internet forums including, unfortunately, this one, to be places not really suited to pleasant exchange of ideas, but rather a place where some folks take advantage of their anonymity to become snipers and make personal attack on those who are looking for this same sense of community.

Don't misunderstand, I thoroughly enjoy this forum, but on the other hand, I've become more and more reluctant to express my opinions on controversial subjects to prevent this from becoming a bar room brawl like some other forums. (and because I find sniping pretty despicable)

Cheers,

carbonize

03-12-2005, 04:27 PM

If you take things personally then the internet is not a good place to be.

acushla

03-12-2005, 04:29 PM

LOL no I wasn't calling you a racist. I was just pointing out that that particular nugget of information is stored as part of my argument arsenal.

That's good to know...and a relief. I didn't really think I had said anything which could have been construed as such...but I wasn't 100% certain that I hadn't. I just wanted you to know that if I had then I was deeply sorry. Thanks for clarifying it...I truly appreciate it.

acushla

03-12-2005, 04:31 PM

If that had been your system I would've suggested your house for the convention. You could have paid all our flights too. :evolved:

I hear you...and believe me when I tell you that I wish I could oblige!

carbonize

03-12-2005, 04:37 PM

I just wish to clarify that if I really did have a problem with anyone on this forum I would make it quite clear. I'm just a lovable, huggable type of guy :grimreape

acushla

03-12-2005, 04:46 PM

If you take things personally then the internet is not a good place to be.

This is a very interesting comment. I do not agree with it but I'm not quite sure why I don't agree with it. Perhaps because it opens the door to the type of exchange aptly described by Inthewoods. When it sinks to that level then it is no longer a forum where people are genuinely trying to contribute in a positive manner for the edification of all. With that comes growth and purpose. If somebody circumvents that process and is simply out to discredit and belittle as opposed to constructive criticism whose intent is to enlighten...well, I suppose I would feel that the INTERNET is not a good place for that person. I feel bad that Inthewoods, who thoroughly enjoys this forum, has become more and more reluctant to express his opinions on controversial subjects so as to prevent this from becoming a bar room brawl. As I see it, expressing ones views is what this is all about and I think it would become apparent to all of us who was abusing this forum. Frankly I haven't seen any of that here. The one time that somebody without really thinking used the f word...in the reply to his post it was gently pointed out that this is a family forum. That's all it took...a simple comment. I think we are all capable of keeping each other in line.

acushla

03-12-2005, 04:50 PM

I just wish to clarify that if I really did have a problem with anyone on this forum I would make it quite clear. I'm just a lovable, huggable type of guy :grimreape

In my mind this is EXACTLY the correct approach.

acushla

03-12-2005, 04:54 PM

Inthewoods

03-12-2005, 05:07 PM

This is a very interesting comment. I do not agree with it but I'm not quite sure why I don't agree with it. Perhaps because it opens the door to the type of exchange aptly described by Inthewoods. When it sinks to that level then it is no longer a forum where people are genuinely trying to contribute in a positive manner for the edification of all. With that comes growth and purpose. If somebody circumvents that process and is simply out to discredit and belittle as opposed to constructive criticism whose intent is to enlighten...well, I suppose I would feel that the INTERNET is not a good place for that person. I feel bad that Inthewoods, who thoroughly enjoys this forum, has become more and more reluctant to express his opinions on controversial subjects so as to prevent this from becoming a bar room brawl. As I see it, expressing ones views is what this is all about and I think it would become apparent to all of us who was abusing this forum. Frankly I haven't seen any of that here. The one time that somebody without really thinking used the f word...in the reply to his post it was gently pointed out that this is a family forum. That's all it took...a simple comment. I think we are all capable of keeping each other in line.

Whoa.....:biggrin: That's an awesome and thoughtful reply

While I consider myself reasonably intelligent and articulate, people like you and Roj, as well as a few others here sometimes make me feel, as a friend of mine once expressed, "magnificently adequate".:ermm:

In this case, you have expressed exactly what I meant better than I did. Thank you! Frankly, I'm glad you have missed the shots, trust me, you didn't miss much.

acushla

03-12-2005, 05:16 PM

Whoa.....:biggrin: That's an awesome and thoughtful reply

While I consider myself reasonably intelligent and articulate, people like you and Roj, as well as a few others here sometimes make me feel, as a friend of mine once expressed, "magnificently adequate".:ermm: .

Very kind...but if you keep it up I'm likely to start believing in myself.

carbonize

03-12-2005, 05:21 PM

acushla

03-12-2005, 05:32 PM

What I meant was that, as someone else stated, people on the internet use the anonymity to just insult people and generaly be idiots. I am admin on three forums, moderator on one and just a member on three others as well as being a frequent visitor to Yahoo chat and it seems a day cannot pass without somebody going out of their way to try and upset people and just be annoying.

Hey...not to change the subject...but how are the conversions going? Were you able to sort through all the advice and come up with a solution that works for you? (This is that thread...isn't it...or am I in the wrong aisle?)

carbonize

03-12-2005, 05:35 PM

I decided that MP3 at 128was the best formy 512MB MP3 player. I did find a seriously nice personal player with OGG support but it was a tad expensive.

acushla

03-12-2005, 05:46 PM

I decided that MP3 at 128was the best formy 512MB MP3 player. I did find a seriously nice personal player with OGG support but it was a tad expensive.

Good...I'm glad it worked out. Were you able to find time to read a little bit about the EAC and RazorLame combination? Approximately how many 'tunes' are you able to get onto your player?

Inthewoods

03-12-2005, 05:56 PM

Hey...not to change the subject...but how are the conversions going? Were you able to sort through all the advice and come up with a solution that works for you? (This is that thread...isn't it...or am I in the wrong aisle?)

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread.....:o I use "--alt-preset standard " with lame 3.90.3. For an interface I've used EAC, CDex, razorlame, and Audiograbber, and I have no particular favorite. This makes for slightly larger file sizes, but I don't have the portable player space constraints. ( I don't yet have one, I'm leaning toward the Dell, but that's another thread)

The above MP3 setup works for me, with very good results for most types of music.

Cheers

carbonize

03-12-2005, 05:56 PM

About 120 give or take. At 128K an MP3 is about 1MB a minute.

acushla

03-12-2005, 06:16 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread.....:o I use "--alt-preset standard " with lame 3.90.3. For an interface I've used EAC, CDex, razorlame, and Audiograbber, and I have no particular favorite. This makes for slightly larger file sizes, but I don't have the portable player space constraints. ( I don't yet have one, I'm leaning toward the Dell, but that's another thread)

The above MP3 setup works for me, with very good results for most types of music.

Cheers

I doubt very much if anybody really cares if the thread takes a turn...as long as it is interesting and enjoyable. If they do they can always bring it back...like I did. I thought you had probably settled on a formula that worked for you but were so engrossed in what was going on you simply forgot to tell us. Now that you have the answer to your original question...well...now what?