Topic: Whats a good music format (Read 5604 times)

Mads_H · « **on:** October 22, 2003, 03:23:53 am »

Im about to rerip my cd's for better sound quality, but what format will give me the best sound (ripping speed and other technicalities are not a problem). I just want the best sound value for my megabytes

escaflo · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2003, 03:34:30 am »

If you are not worry about filesize, I would suggest APE (Monkey's Audio) as it is lossless.

But if you are worry about filesize, I think Ogg is good.

But basically this is more of a personal preference. Why don't u try encoding one song using mp3 and ogg and ape and compare the difference.

If you think you can find out which has the better quality, then stick with that one.

I am not an expert in the audio field but that's just my 2 cents.

gpvillamil · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2003, 03:47:02 am »

Well, a lossless format like APE (included in MC9) or FLAC (not included, but supported as an external encoder) would give you the best quality - both of them will reproduce exactly the same data as is on the original CD. (hence, lossless)

However, these files are pretty big - they'll be about half the size of an uncompressed wave, but still much larger than an MP3, AAC or Ogg file. You'll be looking at over 300MB for a typical CD.

As for compressed file formats, there is a lot of discussion. The compressed formats all rely on a psychoacoustic model of what people actually hear, in order to drop the unneeded parts of the signal and hence improve compression. Unfortunately, these models generally reflect the capabilities of an "average" listener, so different people might prefer different compression formats, or parameters. Also, you need to make a tradeoff between size and quality.

I personally find that VBR (variable bit rate) LAME encoded MP3s using "--alt-preset standard" sound fine to me, and yield about 6:1 compression ratios (ie. a full 650MB audio CD compresses to 100MB). These are supported directly within MC9, or you can call an external encoder. Some people prefer "--alt-preset extreme", which makes files about 15% larger. LAME VBR files will sound considerably better than CBR 160kbps (or even 192kbps) MP3s under practically all conditions.

The consensus is that at high bit rates MP3 sounds as good as other compression schemes - however, at lower bit rates Ogg, MPC and AAC seem better, and they generally produce smaller files. However, they are not as widely supported as MP3, especially on portables.

So if you emphasize quality, lossless is the way to go. From there on in, it depends on what tradeoff you're willing to make between size and quality. Lots of people find LAME VBR MP3s a good compromise. They sound good, are not too big, and are playable just about everywhere.

Mads_H · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2003, 04:46:30 am »

I have actually started ripping using wma format at 256kbps, mainly because I think to have read elsewhere this was a format with slightly better sound quality.
Of course a "blind" test would be the best way to find out, but it is not poosible at the moment, therefore, does anybody have experience with this format and maybe know of its qualities compared to ogg and other formats.
And unfortunately size does matter for me, 1000 cd's lossless, would demand that I prioritate harddisk space to new cd's and I do not like the thought of that.

ChicoSelfs · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2003, 06:02:35 am »

Simple and direct

Archiving:
Lossless like APE

Good sound quality but lossy
-MPC ( transparent @ standard on many samples, if you like to irritate your dog use --Braindead )
-OGG better of MP3 and very good @ 80-192 Kbps average

jleerigby · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2003, 06:42:04 am »

I second gpvillamil's advice. OK - everyone is different but it seems that almost all of us are looking for a sensible balance between:

Quality
File size
Compatibility

That said MP3 VBR has to be the clear winner.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2003, 07:35:16 am »

Best quality, archivable, Lossless - Monkey's Audio 'APE' files

Good quality, reasonable size - MP3 VBR

- enuff said

shAf · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2003, 07:43:03 am »

Quote from: JLee on October 22, 2003, 06:42:04 am

... almost all of us are looking for a sensible balance between:

Quality
File size
Compatibility

That said MP3 VBR has to be the clear winner.

I would concur. MPC fails the campatibility issue, lossless compression (APE) fails the filesize issue, and there's audibly no difference 'tween WMA, MP3 and OGG at VBR-BPS>160 (... to my ears anyway). I now use LAME (--alt-preset extreme), but many of my OGGs (Q=7) are just as good and ~10% smaller.

If you want smaller files (bps < 160), WMA and OGG are probably your best options.

kiwi · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2003, 07:57:23 am »

I would make the comment that when thinking about money spent, think about the amount of time that you are going to spend doing this. If you rip to a lossless format, you will never have to rip again (provided you do a reasonable backup job.) Then you can encode to whatever the codec du jour is.... and when it changes in a week or two... no big deal. MC makes this really really easy. And, as an added bonus, you can pack up all your CDs and put them in the attic.

HDs are getting quite cheap. If you do some shopping, you can get 200gb drives for $80-120 w/ rebates. (Some people even managed to grab some from Dell for $22 or so.

kiwi

Mads_H · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:22:19 am »

Quote from: kiwi on October 22, 2003, 07:57:23 am

If you rip to a lossless format, you will never have to rip again (provided you do a reasonable backup job.) Then you can encode to whatever the codec du jour is....

Good point Kiwi, I'll reconsider the lossless format, ape seems to be what you all can agree on. Are there no compatability problems with APE?

Bartabedian · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:41:55 am »

Quote from: Mads_H on October 22, 2003, 10:22:19 am

Quote from: kiwi on October 22, 2003, 07:57:23 am
If you rip to a lossless format, you will never have to rip again (provided you do a reasonable backup job.) Then you can encode to whatever the codec du jour is....

Good point Kiwi, I'll reconsider the lossless format, ape seems to be what you all can agree on. Are there no compatability problems with APE?

Sure there is, find me a portable that plays APE files. And everyone's answer is "...I just re-encode them for my portable..." and now who's wasting time?

Go LAME CBR 224 to 320 HQ, and I promise you'll never know the difference.

xen-uno · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2003, 11:01:14 am »

FLAC has hardware support (but no MC support...but I am contemplating writing a plug-in...maybe with a little help from Matt & Josh from time to time).

For MP3: The VBR presets APS & APE are more efficient and will sound as good as any CBR setting. but yes...LAME 320 CBR (aka --alt -preset insane) should produce the best quality mp3's possible.

Ogg vs MPC: MPC produces smaller files for a given quality at an average bit rate >= 128 kbs. Sonic quality is extremely close. Ogg also has hardware support away from the computer.

10^-27

Rands · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2003, 12:04:59 pm »

With drive space getting cheaper and cheaper, I now rip everything with APE. It has the benefit that if I want to download to my iPod or burn an MP3 CD for my car stereo, transcoding from APE to MP3 is lossless. So for me, APE makes the most sense.

As for MP3 vs. OGG vs. MPC, I spent a good amount of time messing around with these and, for me, MPC came out on top. The file size was smaller than OGG at similar encoding rates and seemed to produce files that at least gave the illusion of higher sound quality and a wider sound stage (proper stereo separation is very important to me in terms of quality).

nila · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2003, 01:08:10 pm »

woah - hold those horses.
Back up there - where on earth are you finding these 200 gig drives for less than 100$??

I want a couple!!

I say rip to mp3 VBR - highest quality using LAME.

Wouldn't touch wma as I dont know enough about the built in DRM - sure it's not on - but can they turn it on later if they want to? What little 'surprises' are hidden in it?

KingSparta · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2003, 01:14:38 pm »

Quote from: Mads_H on October 22, 2003, 03:23:53 am

Im about to rerip my cd's for better sound quality, but what format will give me the best sound (ripping speed and other technicalities are not a problem). I just want the best sound value for my megabytes

I would recomend Windows Media Lossless.

How many Jukeboxes Use "APE" Or "FLAC"? (not many)

How many of them are compatable with windows media? lots

so you would save alot of time just going Windows Media

I prefer just using VBR MP3's Encoded at the highest setting, it is more transportable.

xen-uno · « **Reply #15 on:** October 22, 2003, 01:51:47 pm »

There is at least (3) different WMA formats that I can think off...WMA 8 (and earlier), WMA Pro, and WML (lossless). They are all different formats and use different encoders AFAIK. Right now, I would venture to guess that WML support is not much better than for FLAC or APE (which are well supported on the players I would want to use). Support for it will surely happen faster, with MS behind it, on those that don't.

10^-27

zevele10 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 22, 2003, 03:50:40 pm »

I use Windows lossless for two raisons :

I can use MusicMatch supertag with it

I bet that kind of Ipod players playing Windows Lossless format will be out before one playing APE.

I'am without internet connection right now-- i just use from time to time a phone/56 kps login from a friend.

In Explorer ONLY TO CLICK ON A WMA FILE MAKES WINDOWS WANTING TO CALL HOME...................

Just a left click ,not a right click with menu " play in..."

I'am sure that it is a call you can block for ever setting your firewall...BUT.....

Robert Taylor · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2003, 04:21:33 pm »

How good are YOUR ears?

My 38 year old ones have suffered a lot of loud music, concerts etc. and hence aren't quite what they used to be. (They don't have ear transplants yet do they?)

I don't give a nuts if audio analysis shows that this format is better than that format.

Does it sound good to me?

I use MP3 VBR HQ.

Good balance between space used, quality, ease of use, support from external devices.

That's what's important to me! What's important to you?

kiwi · « **Reply #18 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:40:11 pm »

Quote from: WarrenPeace on October 22, 2003, 10:41:55 am

Sure there is, find me a portable that plays APE files. And everyone's answer is "...I just re-encode them for my portable..." and now who's wasting time?

I'm not wasting any of my time. I just tell MC to perform a batch format convert on all the files and then go to sleep at night. When I wake up in the morning they're all ready for me to use.

jleerigby · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:13:25 am »

Quote from: kiwi on October 22, 2003, 10:40:11 pm

Quote from: WarrenPeace on October 22, 2003, 10:41:55 am
Sure there is, find me a portable that plays APE files. And everyone's answer is "...I just re-encode them for my portable..." and now who's wasting time?

I'm not wasting any of my time. I just tell MC to perform a batch format convert on all the files and then go to sleep at night. When I wake up in the morning they're all ready for me to use.

You make it sound so easy but that sounds like a PITA to me. I think that when Mads_h answers Lunchmeat's question he'll make the sensible choice and go for MP3 VBR.

kiwi · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2003, 04:17:30 am »

Quote from: JLee on October 23, 2003, 02:13:25 am

You make it sound so easy but that sounds like a PITA to me. I think that when Mads_h answers Lunchmeat's question he'll make the sensible choice and go for MP3 VBR.

I didn't find it too difficult. Created a new "MP3 library" cloned from my APE library. Then just select all the songs I want to convert. Select the "Convert Format" item from the tools menu. Select the appropriate values for encoding... i.e. MP3 etc. And hit convert. Came back in the morning and it's all waiting for me.

kiwi

nila · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2003, 06:38:48 am »

Hey - what happened to those cheap hard drives anyone???

Any more info on them??

kiwi · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:02:56 am »

Nila ~ You have to find HDs with rebates. If you poke around on the AVS Forums HTPC, you'll probably see some posts about them. Also, sites like TechBargins. You just have to be patient and lucky.

kiwi

LonWar · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:08:09 am »

Quote from: kiwi on October 23, 2003, 04:17:30 am

Quote from: JLee on October 23, 2003, 02:13:25 am
You make it sound so easy but that sounds like a PITA to me. I think that when Mads_h answers Lunchmeat's question he'll make the sensible choice and go for MP3 VBR.

I didn't find it too difficult. Created a new "MP3 library" cloned from my APE library. Then just select all the songs I want to convert. Select the "Convert Format" item from the tools menu. Select the appropriate values for encoding... i.e. MP3 etc. And hit convert. Came back in the morning and it's all waiting for me.

kiwi

However it does take a long time to do.
I am currently convertind close to 5000 ape files to MP3 160 for my Nomad and it should take about 3 days straight. I've had it running for almost 2 days straight and it's just over half done.

Nila, When you get your hard drive, just make sure it has 8mb cache. It makes all the difference..

Ce.D · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:09:45 am »

Ideally (considering time spent encoding) : lossless such as APE (ratio ~ 0.5-0.6, from my experience)

But you need lot of disc space, especially when considering keeping a separate version in lossy format for your handheld and/or your laptop (conversion 'on-the-fly' is too slow)

Absolutely NOT (considering perenity): MS formats

I'd rather avoid being dependant on MS. I converted all my former WMAs (didn't care for the loss of quality!) in MP3: hated to get that 'can't acquire license to play file' message (for my OWN personal CDs...)

My choice ("HiFi"): MP3 VBR ~192 kbps (LAME --preset standard > ratio ~ 0.14-0.16)

I tried other settings than 'LAME --preset standard':
- VBR lower than 192 kbps: I could clearly hear artifacts on some songs (chiming, high freq "gliding"), especially when high frequencies were involved (acoustic guitars, cymbals, triangles, ...)
- CBR @ 192 kbps: why waste the bits ? use VBR !
- VBR/CBR higher than 192 kbps: gets too big and I can't hear anymore artifacts (though *some* tracks might require higher settings)

My choice ("Handheld"): MP2 VBR ~64 kbps (LAME --preset 64 > ratio ~ 0.04-0.05)

I personally can't afford 256MB or more memory cards (anecdot: just read stuff about a new 4'300.- $ 6GB microdrive... Gee, that'd be expensive music !) and I need the most unexpensive and heavy-duty handheld (i.e. no hard drive; cf. mechanical stress: I can't believe a hard drive is designed to be runned/skied/moutain-biked with; maybe I'm wrong).
Lower than 64 kbps is just *unlistenable* !
Given 64 kbps (~4.5 hours on 128MB), 'LAME --preset 64' is just performing the best.

Besides:

What I like with MP3 is the ability to burn data CD/DVDs and use it in any modern home or car CD/DVD player (no need to have the PC or handheld handy): 10 times more music on *one* CD (great for the car); never tried with DVD but that'd make a *lot* of music on a *single* media !

Avoid: MP3 Pro

Though the advertising is hard 'n good on this format (it is good for low bitrates), can't consider it for archival (no better than plain old MP3 @ 128 kbps and above)

Caution with: MP4 (for the time being)

This format looks promising. I nonetheless read a lot about the fact that higher bitrates (192 kbps and above) haven't been "debugged" enough (so far) and that artifacts occured much more than on plain old MP3 equivalent. Maybe the situation already changed. I personally chose to rely on well-proofed plain old MP3.

Vorbis OGG: dont' know

Never tried but heard a lot of good about it.

Mads_H · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2003, 10:37:39 am »

Lossless does sound apealing to me, just for the sake of never having to rerip my collection for future formats.
But ofcourse an increase with factor 10 to the size of space required is a thing to consider.

Some time ago a thread dealt with the fact that windows did not play with the sampling frequency as the original cd, due to some kmixer... always used for playing sound in windows. Is lossless formats in some way effected by this? Is original smapling kept or ...

Ce.d you mention NO ms formats due to perenity- I have consulted my danish-english dictionary but still only has a vague idea of what perenity means - can you elaborate?

Since I never use portable audio only harddisk space and the sound quality is interesting. So LunchmeatVoom, thats my priority.

I will listen to my files through spdif (preferably without going through the kmixer) and my external hifi da-converter. With this setup is does not matter whether my ears are young or old, because every little "bad sound" is carried all the way through the system.

LonWar · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2003, 11:07:58 am »

See below and pick your poison

perennity

\Per*en"ni*ty\, n. [L. perennitas.] The quality of being perennial. [R.] --Derham.

5 entries found for perennial.
per·en·ni·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-rn-l)
adj.
Lasting or active through the year or through many years.

Lasting an indefinitely long time; enduring: perennial happiness.
Appearing again and again; recurrent. See Synonyms at continual.
Botany. Living three or more years.

n.
Botany. A perennial plant.
Something that recurs or seems to recur on a yearly or continual basis: “that hardy perennial, the budget deficit” (David S. Broder).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin perennis(per-, throughout; see per- + annus, year; see at- in Indo-European Roots) + -al1.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
per·enni·al·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

perennial

\Per*en"ni*al\, a. [L. perennis that lasts the whole year through; per through + annus year. See Per-, and Annual.] 1. ing or continuing through the year; as, perennial fountains.

2. Continuing without cessation or intermission; perpetual; unceasing; never failing.

The perennial existence of bodies corporate. --Burke.

3. (Bot.) Continuing more than two years; as, a perennial steam, or root, or plant.

Syn: Perpetual; unceasing; never failing; enduring; continual; permanent; uninterrupted.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

perennial

\Per*en"ni*al\, n. (Bot.) A perennial plant; a plant which lives or continues more than two years, whether it retains its leaves in winter or not.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

perennial

adj 1: (botany) lasting three seasons or more; "the common buttercup is a popular perennial plant" [ant: annual, biennial] 2: lasting an indefinitely long time; suggesting self-renewal; "perennial happiness" 3: recurring again and again; "perennial efforts to stipulate the requirements" [syn: recurrent, repeated] n : a plant lasting for three seasons or more

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

perennial

perennial: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Ce.D · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2003, 12:41:45 pm »

@ imjustagamer : sorry, I forgot an "n" in "perennity"

@ Mads_H : sorry for being obscure. The word was thrown at me a few days ago and I found it pretty appropriate in the sense that MS gives no warranty (based on experience...) that its format(s) will always be supported in the future, both from MS itself or from the concurrence. $:-\$
UPDATE (exemple given): I started ripping everything in WMA, about 2 years ago. Everything was alright until *one* day, when WMAs started throwing at me the "cannot acquire license to play file". Windows Media update ? MC update ? *Don't know* ! I didn't spent time investigating the matter (don't want to get political, but I don't like the idea of having a file that somehow doesn't 100% *belong* to me; this is badly put but I hope you get my point)...

As for the Windows kmixer stuff, I *think* I remember having read something in that sense (resampling) on the subject but I wouldn't sware on it. *Anyway*, using SPDIF should prevent you from experiencing this problem if ever it exists: I personally use M-Audio Sonica (USB -> Optical SPDIF) and the only way I found to have a fully functionnal SPDIF behavior (such as with 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS WAVs) is to output sound directly to "Wave Out" (NOT "Direct Sound"), without going through the "wave mapper" (in other words, if I'm not wrong, directly to the sound device).

As for "fully digital" vs "mixed analogic/digital" sound path: the day I switched to SPDIF, I realized how *poor* my former "mixed analogic/digital" solution sounded (even if it was far from ideal). Sound clarity and high frequency rendering is tremenduously better using a "fully digital" path. That might be especially true in my scenario, where I use a home-theater amplifier that performs in *most* case an analog-to-digital conversion (one genuine bottleneck in regards with sound quality) to apply sound processing and then performs a final digital-to-analog before amplifying. SPDIF thus allowed me to get rid of an unnecessary digital-to-analog-to-digital conversion.

*Thus*, choosing your format appropriately becomes even more important, especially when bearing in mind that lossy formats usually have the more impact on clarity and high frequency rendering (exactly where SPDIF allows you to achieve better quality...). I personally would go for lossless if it wasn't for the hard disc's space "race".

Mads_H · « **Reply #28 on:** October 24, 2003, 01:25:26 am »

I guess uncompressed wav would be the best solution... $:-\$
thank´s guys

nameless · « **Reply #29 on:** October 24, 2003, 03:28:50 am »

Why would you use WAV files? ?

It really isn't that complicated... Going lossless is great, since it (obviously) lets you keep a pristine copy of the original. But you will have to deal with compatibility issues.

If you have or can afford to acquire enough drive space, and you don't mind converting files as needed, go with Monkey's Audio (APE). Remember that you will have to backup those files too, though! (Which effectively doubles the storage requirement.)

If you don't have the drive space, or don't want the hassle of converting APE files to other formats (for use in portables), go with MP3. Whether you use MP3 VBR or MP3 320 kbps CBR is, again, a matter of hard drive space.

If you can afford to use Monkey's Audio, you will always be able to change to something else later--either in whole or in part--without quality loss. So, your decision isn't a religious one; it's one that needs to be done with a calculator and a checkbook.

Everything is a trade-off!

gpvillamil · « **Reply #30 on:** October 24, 2003, 06:13:04 am »

Oh, and regardless of what format you choose, don't forget to rip using Digital Secure mode... Slower, but it will guarantee (almost) that your rips are good to begin with.

jleerigby · « **Reply #31 on:** October 24, 2003, 06:52:27 am »

Quote from: Mads_H on October 24, 2003, 01:25:26 am

I guess uncompressed wav would be the best solution... $:-\$
thank´s guys

Now I am confused! I'm beginning to wonder what your question was all about. What happened to:

Quote

...size does matter for me, 1000 cd's lossless, would demand that I prioritate harddisk space to new cd's and I do not like the thought of that.

Mads_H · « **Reply #32 on:** October 24, 2003, 11:55:29 am »

Quote from: JLee on October 24, 2003, 06:52:27 am

Quote from: Mads_H on October 24, 2003, 01:25:26 am
I guess uncompressed wav would be the best solution... $:-\$
thank´s guys
Now I am confused! I'm beginning to wonder what your question was all about. What happened to:
Quote
...size does matter for me, 1000 cd's lossless, would demand that I prioritate harddisk space to new cd's and I do not like the thought of that.

My comment on wav was regarding playing safe for whatever the future might bring, it does seem that none of the formats mentioned are certain bets for what will be future-secure.

I have tried out APE and wml. Both sound and size of ape seems to be the best - But when hd prices hit the bottom i'll start ripping i wav

Bryan · « **Reply #33 on:** October 24, 2003, 01:15:59 pm »

Mads_H,

If you can afford the hard drive space you will definately be pleased with APE. I've been using it for at least 3 years now and I am quite pleased with it (quality, performance, and reliabilty). I wish it were more widely supported but you can still convert to another format with no quality loss (when going to another lossless format.) I've got approx 5500 APES and they fit in about 135GB hard drive space. I recently purcased a Maxtor 160 HDD for $99 at CompUSA ($149 - $50 rebate).. Keep an eye out for specials..

Also I would agree with several comments here about formats.. MP3 is the most flexible with regard to being supported. WMA, while good, could very well cause you headaches in the future with licensing/DRM issues. Microsoft could at any time enable DRM enforement within the O/S and not allow any WMA files to play without a license, on any player.. keep that one in mind....

FLAC is also very good and has the huge advantage of being supported by a growing list of hardware manufacturers and other software apps. Unfortunately MC or MJ doesn't support playback of the format. I would consider switching to FLAC if MC supported it.

Bottom line and thinking long-term, let your listening priorities, your ears, and your budget drive your decision. In that order if possible.. Lossless could save you some time in the future but has an initial bite in the wallet for a big hard drive.

Bryan

xen-uno · « **Reply #34 on:** October 24, 2003, 01:29:07 pm »

As long as Matt (the author) lives long and prospers, you'll always find support for ape. I would imagine he would open-source ape when the time came where he didn't care to fiddle with it anymore, then someone else would take up the slack. He works for JRiver...ICYDK. It's life as a format is long lived.

10^-27

nameless · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2003, 04:22:42 pm »

Monkey's Audio files that you make today will always be open for conversion to some other format. I mean, the codec is available now, it works, so even if Matt pulled a Cat Stevens on us, or if 35 years went by, you could always use the Monkey's Audio codec that is available today to convert the files to something else.

Bryan · « **Reply #36 on:** October 24, 2003, 05:26:57 pm »

Quote from: nameless on October 24, 2003, 04:22:42 pm

if 35 years went, you could always use the Monkey's Audio codec that is available today to convert the files to something else.

Provided the codec would still run on the Operatiing systems of 2038 and/or you could keep current pc hardware working that long.

nameless · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2003, 06:40:48 pm »

Quote from: Bryan on October 24, 2003, 05:26:57 pm

Quote from: nameless on October 24, 2003, 04:22:42 pm
if 35 years went by, you could always use the Monkey's Audio codec that is available today to convert the files to something else.

Provided the codec would still run on the Operatiing systems of 2038 and/or you could keep current pc hardware working that long.

Ugh... I was waiting for someone to say something like that. But in point of fact, in 2038 there will be no problem running Win32 apps; that is the year in which Service Pack 2 for Windows XP will likely be released.

lalittle · « **Reply #38 on:** October 25, 2003, 03:43:43 am »

Quote

- CBR @ 192 kbps: why waste the bits ? use VBR !

I've noticed that with an iPod and MC, VBR files are much more prone to potentially cutting off the last bit of a song or introducing more noticeable pauses (which you can notice in cases where the song doesn't fade out -- i.e. when one song leads directly into the next.)

On a side note, problems that I noticed with cut off songs on the iPod did not occur when using Ephpod to sync, so this may be specific to MC. That said, I haven't noticed any cut off song problems in a while -- I'm not sure if the problem was "solved" by a new MC build, or if I just haven't run into any problem songs in while (I've been listenning to more Audible files lately.)

Larry

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Whats a good music format (Read 5604 times)

jleerigby

LisaRCT

nila

zevele10

jleerigby

nila

nameless

jleerigby

nameless

nameless