MOTM

Personally, when I rip one of my CDs for storage at work, I know that I'm
getting a less-than-perfect copy.  I use 160kbps (the highest my ripper will
go; maybe I should get a different one...), so the copy ends up swishy,
gargley, flanged, etc, especially on highhats.  But now, when I get the urge
to listen to some song, instead of hoping that it *might* be on one of the 4
or 5 CDs I happened to bring in that day, there's a much greater chance that
I've ripped it and its already on my hard drive.

In short, I don't expect great sound.  I expect great availability.  When I
want great sound, I listen on my home stereo.

Now, unfortunately, if you're ripping a soundbyte to demonstrate the
detailed nuances of some equipment or playing style, you're SOL!  Like a bad
A/D converter, you're bound to loose something.  :(

--PBr


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dave Bradley [SMTP:daveb@...]
> Sent:	Friday, June 30, 2000 7:45 AM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	[motm] fun with mp3 converters
> 
> I just downloaded the encoder suggested below by David. This is my first
> time playing with them. I took Larry's .wav file as input, and played with
> all the different codecs and bitrate settings.
> 
> Each and every one of them altered the sound audibly. It was plain bad
> (gargling) until I bumped the bitrate up to 256 or 320. Even at the
> highest
> rate, it changed the sound of the VCOs from more of a pulse wave in the
> original .wav file, to a hollower, more square wave sound in the .mpg
> file.
> 
> Is this alteration of sound quality a general problem with mpg encoders?
> How
> do you seasoned mp3'ers deal with this?
>