PDA

View Full Version : Loading music files on mp3player



Skweeky
10-12-2007, 02:36 PM
What's the best format to put them in and how do I compress them?:huh:



I can't believe I'm asking such a noob questions.
I've been stealing music and films for 7 years now
Yet I don't know how to do this

I blame you JP
You should've told me
There was plenty of opportunity over the years:angry:

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:38 PM
I use CDEX (free download) to make mp3 files.

It's a neat interface and names the tracks for you if you want.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:39 PM
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/ (www.ownster.com)

Alien5
10-12-2007, 02:39 PM
mp3's are all ready compressed

choose 192 for good enough quality up to 320 for very good.

for perfect cd quality choose flac/lossless.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:40 PM
VBR is the ticket, why use a fixed bitrate, there's no need.

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 02:40 PM
I used to use CDEX, but now I use something similar called AudioGrabber, for no other reason than I like the name better :smilie4:

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:41 PM
CDEX has been improving you should give it a try.

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 02:41 PM
VBR or 192.
320 or lossless is a waste of time and space IMHO

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 02:41 PM
Well you should try AudioGrabber :snooty:

http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:42 PM
VBR or 192.
320 or lossless is a waste of time and space IMHO

Agreed.

Why use something producing a spectrum of sound your amp or speakers doesn't cover anyway.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Well you should try AudioGrabber :snooty:

http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/

I will if you will. :(

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Downloading now

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 02:51 PM
I probably will have a look at CDEX when I get home

Something Else
10-12-2007, 02:52 PM
I stick to the lossless, but I've got the amp/speakers for it :D
My mate haxxed his ipod so it plays lossless and games and stuff too...if ur an audiophile you will appreciate the difference. If not then 192kb/ variable is fine.....

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 02:55 PM
I stick to the lossless, but I've got the amp/speakers for it :D


If you have it's a good idea.

Some people actually prefer the sound of MP3 files to CDs tho.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 02:57 PM
:lol: are you joking, which tard said that?

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 02:58 PM
'Tis true.
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl records compared to digital recordings too.

Skweeky
10-12-2007, 03:00 PM
What I actually meant was...

I want the files to be as small as possible, how do I do that?

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:00 PM
I prefer the sound of vinyl to digital, that's fine...
But mp3 to cd come off it that's just a lower quality copy of the same thing...that's like prefering the quality of an xvid ripped from a dvd :lol:


What I actually meant was...

I want the files to be as small as possible, how do I do that?

Prolly mp4 @ 192kb (smaller than mp3)

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:01 PM
:lol: are you joking, which tard said that?

Gen up. In a test people were played both and asked which they prefer. Some folk consistently prefer MP3 to CD.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:03 PM
some folk are consistently retarded or tone-deaf...means nothing...other than some people prefer a worse quality sound...some people prefer VHS to dvd so what...

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:03 PM
I prefer the sound of vinyl to digital, that's fine...
But mp3 to cd come off it that's just a lower quality copy of the same thing...that's like prefering the quality of an xvid ripped from a dvd :lol:

It's not really analogous. Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and if they are removed they prefer the result.

And also the sound becomes less complex and therefore more pleasant to some people.

I know it's counter intuitive but it's true.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:04 PM
some folk are consistently retarded or tone-deaf...means nothing...

It has nothing to do with being mentally disabled or tone deaf, it's simply that they prefer how it sounds.

Skweeky
10-12-2007, 03:05 PM
JP you arse :lol:

I clicked the damn link

Now give me a serious answer

Twunt

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:06 PM
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/

True story

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:07 PM
some folk are consistently retarded or tone-deaf...means nothing...

It has nothing to do with being mentally disabled or tone deaf, it's simply that they prefer how it sounds.

So it's to do with hearing problems then, fair enuff...:dabs:

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 03:07 PM
Pfffft, Thank goodness I totally ignored your first link :glag:

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:08 PM
It has nothing to do with being mentally disabled or tone deaf, it's simply that they prefer how it sounds.

So it's to do with hearing problems then, fair enuff...:dabs:

Nope, not at all. Indeed if it was they may not hear the additional material in the CD track and therefore wouldn't perceive any difference.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:09 PM
pish....your saying:



Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and if they are removed they prefer the result.
And also the sound becomes less complex and therefore more pleasant to some people.


= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.

If you know about sound, a lower bitrate conversion offers nothing over an original, sure some may prefer it, but they are prefering an inferior copy....which is just silly...

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:12 PM
pish....your saying:



Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and if they are removed they prefer the result.
And also the sound becomes less complex and therefore more pleasant to some people.


= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.

Fair point, I wasn't thinking of hearing problems in that way.

I was more talking about the second part, "audio awareness". They are aware of the sounds, they just don't like them.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:13 PM
pish....your saying:



Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and if they are removed they prefer the result.
And also the sound becomes less complex and therefore more pleasant to some people.


= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.

If you know about sound, a lower bitrate conversion offers nothing over an original, sure some may prefer it, but they are prefering an inferior copy....which is just silly...

It's not silly it's a matter of taste.

Replying to your busyedit btw.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:14 PM
Pfffft, Thank goodness I totally ignored your first link :glag:

Damn, I knew the Skweekster had queered me pitch.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:15 PM
A matter of bad taste....or ignorance, that's no excuse...

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:17 PM
Indeed, everyone thinks that taste which differs from theirs is bad taste.

That's kind of how it works.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:20 PM
Your argument is so pointless, you can always find someone with a differing opinion.....Lossless is better than lossy. Fact.

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 03:21 PM
:no2:

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:25 PM
Your argument is so pointless, you can always find someone with a differing opinion.....Lossless is better than lossy. Fact.

That's a value judgment and you have made yours. As it happens I agree (subject to having the correct kit) however other people prefer other things. As such for them the other thing is better.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:27 PM
preference is one thing. better quality is another............

e.g. I prefer watching portsmouth to arsenal, but arsenal play better football fact. I wouldn't deny it....it's obviousement

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:33 PM
You are discussing the word "better" in objective terms. However listening to music is subjective.

It really just depends on which particular use of "better" one is using. I would argue that in listening to music the important thing is whether someone enjoys it or not. Making the subjective test the important one.

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:36 PM
Now your making sense, I agree with that, I'm just quite technical with my music (I produce some stuff) so from my angle (subjective, yes) I could never produce a track in mp3, I'd be laughed out of town....you get me? At end-user level enjoyment is number one priority, but on production level sound quality is most important.

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 03:36 PM
The quality of the music is more important than the quality of the sound.

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Now your making sense

:lol::earl::cawk:

Mr JP Fugley
10-12-2007, 03:38 PM
The quality of the music is more important than the quality of the sound.

:noshitsherlock:

Barbarossa
10-12-2007, 03:41 PM
The quality of the music is more important than the quality of the sound.

:noshitsherlock:

:lol:

I used to tell this to my mates who bought really expensive sound systems, and then proceeded to play the worst kind of dance-music on them, while I was still making compilation tapes of live tracks recorded from the radio...

Something Else
10-12-2007, 03:41 PM
I'd like to hear an MP3 released album :lol: oh noes radioshack already did it :lol:
A combination of good music and good sound works for me....