RE: [motm] fun with mp3 converters
2000-06-30 by Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)
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
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----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? >