Good Tip For 56k Users.

[McLaren]

When you download music try finding the song you are looking for in .wma format and then download an wma to mp3 converter program to convert it. Reason why to do this is because .wma music file's are not as large and doesn't take long to download as .mp3.

[Rip The Jacker]

But if you download and convert a WMA into MP3, the quality won't be as good. You will get better quality with MP3's, that's why they are bigger.

Still, good post, should be moved to 'Tips' though.

[asmithz]

yeah wma are not that good.

[McLaren]

Originally posted by KrackHead2k@23 September 2003 - 03:03
But if you download and convert a WMA into MP3, the quality won't be as good. You will get better quality with MP3's, that's why they are bigger.

Still, good post, should be moved to 'Tips' though.
I downloaded this converter program where you can change the bit rate's and quality of it and stuff like that.

[Mr. Blunt]

But .WMA files are bigger than .MP3 files though. Am I right?

Isn't that why you find more .mp3 files and .wma files? .mp3 are smaller and they can be uploaded and downloaded more quickly.

[McLaren]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt@23 September 2003 - 03:43
But .WMA files are bigger than .MP3 files though. Am I right?

Isn't that why you find more .mp3 files and .wma files? .mp3 are smaller and they can be uploaded and downloaded more quickly.
Nope .wma file size range from 1MB to 3MB Max.

[Rip The Jacker]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt@22 September 2003 - 19:43
But .WMA files are bigger than .MP3 files though. Am I right?

Isn't that why you find more .mp3 files and .wma files? .mp3 are smaller and they can be uploaded and downloaded more quickly.
Not 100% sure, but I think WMA files are smaller than MP3 files. It also depends on the bitrate of the MP3.

[mogadishu]

also, once a file is at a low bitrate, you cant make it higher and sound better. you can only downgrade the bit-rate.

[Mr. Blunt]

Oh, I remember reading that somewere. I'll try something out with .wma and .mp3 files soon. I'll post the results later.

[gumbydancin]

Originally posted by mogadishu@22 September 2003 - 22:50
also, once a file is at a low bitrate, you cant make it higher and sound better. you can only downgrade the bit-rate.
Exactly.

McLaren - if you share a lot please don't download lower quality .wma and convert them to mp3 and share those new mp3's on the network. They will only pollute the network with files that are poorer quality than ones that were encoded to mp3 originally and are the same size.

[Mr. Blunt]

Well I tried something right now. I ripped a MP3 file and a WMA file. They were both 192 K bits/second and the same song.

http://home.earthlink.net/~akademiikz07/images/files.PNG

The WMA files seems to be bigger than the MP3. Oh well. Proved me wrong. Maybe it'll be different for another file. Dunno.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt@22 September 2003 - 23:34
Well I tried something right now. I ripped a MP3 file and a WMA file. They were both 192 K bits/second and the same song.

http://home.earthlink.net/~akademiikz07/images/files.PNG

The WMA files seems to be bigger than the MP3. Oh well. Proved me wrong. Maybe it'll be different for another file. Dunno.
yea, even if the file is smaller, the difference is miniscule, while the quality is quite noticable.

your better off getting ogg. files.

ps. like the sig on the pic blunt. :P

[Mr. Blunt]

Originally posted by mogadishu@22 September 2003 - 21:37
ps. like the sig on the pic blunt. :P
Why thank you. :D


I was just speaking the truth. :P

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt+22 September 2003 - 23:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr. Blunt @ 22 September 2003 - 23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mogadishu@22 September 2003 - 21:37
ps. like the sig on the pic blunt. :P
Why thank you. :D


I was just speaking the truth. :P [/b][/quote]
:D

[Rip The Jacker]

Mr. Blunt your avatar cracks me up everytime I look at it. :lol:

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by KrackHead2k@23 September 2003 - 00:37
Mr. Blunt your avatar cracks me up everytime I look at it. :lol:
yes, and your avatar is quite amusing as well. hehe. :D :D

[Alucard1475]

Originally posted by McLaren@23 September 2003 - 12:56
When you download music try finding the song you are looking for in .wma format and then download an wma to mp3 converter program to convert it. Reason why to do this is because .wma music file&#39;s are not as large and doesn&#39;t take long to download as .mp3.
Thanks for the tip, but I prefer downloading the mp3&#39;s as they are only 4-5mb at 128 bps. Conversion would take time.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Alucard1475+23 September 2003 - 01:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alucard1475 @ 23 September 2003 - 01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-McLaren@23 September 2003 - 12:56
When you download music try finding the song you are looking for in .wma format and then download an wma to mp3 converter program to convert it. Reason why to do this is because .wma music file&#39;s are not as large and doesn&#39;t take long to download as .mp3.
Thanks for the tip, but I prefer downloading the mp3&#39;s as they are only 4-5mb at 128 bps. Conversion would take time. [/b][/quote]
yes, while we are all dissing wma&#39;s.. mp3s are still king. they are small. (do you wanna download a wave file) and pack a lot of quality. I hope they will soon be overtaken by .ogg, which seems to be one of the best inovations in digital music to happen since, well, the mp3 was introduced. But until then, your best bet is still with mp3s.

[Spider_dude]

i have a tip for 56k users.....get broadband

[summerlinda]

Originally posted by Spider_dude@23 September 2003 - 13:52
i have a tip for 56k users.....get broadband
Best tip yeah :P


McLaren - if you share a lot please don&#39;t download lower quality .wma and convert them to mp3 and share those new mp3&#39;s on the network. They will only pollute the network with files that are poorer quality than ones that were encoded to mp3 originally and are the same size.

Agree&#33;

Dont mess with bitrates please. It just creates bad quality music files.
Converted files [from 128 to 192] do not sound better, and if you share them you are simply deceiving people&#33;

If you really want small files try MP3 PRO, its crap, but small files...

[ezyryder]

Also wma files are more rare, so if you were using kazaa may still in theory (despite size) take longer than an mp3

[Spider_dude]

cant remember if i told you EZ i ripped the offical soundtrack to your name, in 192 of course.

[netweiser]

Originally posted by McLaren+23 September 2003 - 03:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (McLaren @ 23 September 2003 - 03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Blunt@23 September 2003 - 03:43
But .WMA files are bigger than .MP3 files though. Am I right?

Isn&#39;t that why you find more .mp3 files and .wma files? .mp3 are smaller and they can be uploaded and downloaded more quickly.
Nope .wma file size range from 1MB to 3MB Max. [/b][/quote]
not true. i have some WMA files that are around 30MB (they are long songs tho). Also WMA quality isnt so bad.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by www.netweiser.com+23 September 2003 - 11:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (www.netweiser.com @ 23 September 2003 - 11:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by McLaren@23 September 2003 - 03:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Blunt@23 September 2003 - 03:43
But .WMA files are bigger than .MP3 files though. Am I right?

Isn&#39;t that why you find more .mp3 files and .wma files? .mp3 are smaller and they can be uploaded and downloaded more quickly.
Nope .wma file size range from 1MB to 3MB Max.
not true. i have some WMA files that are around 30MB (they are long songs tho). Also WMA quality isnt so bad. [/b][/quote]
well, yea.. u could have a 50gb file as well, but i think he means most songs.. but that isnt true.. ive seen them at 4mb, 5mb, about the same size as most mp3s.. just shitty quality and less compatability with anything but windows media player.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt@ 23 September 2003 - 04:34
Well I tried something right now. I ripped a MP3 file and a WMA file. They were both 192 K bits/second and the same song.

http://home.earthlink.net/~akademiikz07/images/files.PNG

The WMA files seems to be bigger than the MP3. Oh well. Proved me wrong. Maybe it&#39;ll be different for another file. Dunno.

Ripping a track at 192 k bits/second is always going to produce the same size file. No matter what format you use, the file is still being encoded at 192 kilobits per second. Work it out. A 5 minute song:- 192 k bits * 60 * 5 = the size of the file.

The advantage that one format may have over another, is being able to rip at a lower bit rate at the same quality.

[silent VI]

;) I Gotta 56k tip why don tyou try umm buyinging cable or dsl or somthing faster than ya got buddy thats why faster connection have been envented for us so we can get things faster trust me its worth 30 buck s a month lol and dont say you cant afford it cause were broke as fu** and we have dsl line for years :P

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 00:44
;) I Gotta 56k tip why don tyou try umm buyinging cable or dsl or somthing faster than ya got buddy thats why faster connection have been envented for us so we can get things faster trust me its worth 30 buck s a month lol and dont say you cant afford it cause were broke as fu** and we have dsl line for years :P
1 - learn english.
2 - a lot of people cannot get broadband where they live, so they are stuck with 56k. Thus, these threads can sometimes be helpful to them..

[silent VI]

1) :o r u racist or just not the smartest cookie i know english buddy i am america born canadian raised both first language is english i think you ment for me to learn how to type not speak :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
2)what about satillite

[internet.news]

am I right? I don&#39;t know, but I recently downloaded a wma file - I think
it was Gollum&#39;s Song from LOTR II (Lord of the Rings 2 - The Two Towers) -
which was copyright protected. I could not listen to the song, cause license
was no longer valid. Everytime I try to play the file he sent me to a www-site
telling me this issue with the license?

My Solution: I downloaded the same song as mp3 ...


thanks.

david.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 01:36
1) :o r u racist or just not the smartest cookie i know english buddy i am america born canadian raised both first language is english i think you ment for me to learn how to type not speak :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
2)what about satillite
lmao.. how am i a racist..

[Storm]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+24 September 2003 - 00:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 24 September 2003 - 00:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Ripping a track at 192 k bits/second is always going to produce the same size file. No matter what format you use, the file is still being encoded at 192 kilobits per second. Work it out. A 5 minute song:- 192 k bits * 60 * 5 = the size of the file.

The advantage that one format may have over another, is being able to rip at a lower bit rate at the same quality. [/b]
not true, cause a music file will still have a header to it (or whatever its called), with info such as the ID tag&#39;s in mp3&#39;s or the not editable annoyin info on the microshit format........... as mp3&#39;s allow u 2 add more info (2 diffrent tag&#39;s) it can be a lil bigger......... try it....... look at an mp3 without the ID3-2 tag, and add it, type some info, and save that......... ull c the file is about 1k bigger........ WITH NO CHANGES 2 THE BITRATE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36
2)what about satillite and thnx 2 my boss payin me E500 an hour i can aford that...........

stfu man, not every1 can get that shit............. and even if u can, ur still dependant on the weather............


Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36
i know english buddy
<!--QuoteBegin-DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36
2)what about satillite[/quote]

rnt u kinda contradictin urself here????? :lol: ;)

[Spider_dude]

i cannot even decide where to begin to describe what is wrong with your sentence.




1) r u racist or just not the smartest cookie i know english buddy i am america born canadian raised both first language is english i think you ment for me to learn how to type not speak
2)what about satillite


1) you are (either "a racist" or "acting in a racist fashion") or not just the smartest cookie"," i know english buddy i am american born, raised in canada, both these countries first languages are english.
i think you meant for me to learn to type not how to speak<----since all we can see is your typing on the internet we must assume this is how you speak, and actually in practise if your grammer is as bad as this when in written form, chances are you speak this way too.
2) what about satelite????come on get a grip, the only people with this kind of connection are big time porn barons.

[Celerystalksme]

Originally posted by Spider_dude@24 September 2003 - 23:50
come on get a grip, the only people with this kind of connection are big time porn barons.
And hey i&#39;ll tell you from experience...not even these guys can afford that connection...im only on LAN :D :lol:

[Spider_dude]

by bigtime porn baron i meant people who sell it, not people who masterbate to it constantly, celery&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by Storm+ 24 September 2003 - 13:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Storm &#064; 24 September 2003 - 13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-LTJBukem@ 23 September 2003 - 23:58
Ripping a track at 192 k bits/second is always going to produce the same size file. No matter what format you use, the file is still being encoded at 192 kilobits per second. Work it out. A 5 minute song:- 192 k bits * 60 * 5 = the size of the file.
The advantage that one format may have over another, is being able to rip at a lower bit rate at the same quality.

not true, cause a music file will still have a header to it (or whatever its called), with info such as the ID tag&#39;s in mp3&#39;s or the not editable annoyin info on the microshit format........... as mp3&#39;s allow u 2 add more info (2 diffrent tag&#39;s) it can be a lil bigger......... try it....... look at an mp3 without the ID3-2 tag, and add it, type some info, and save that......... ull c the file is about 1k bigger........ WITH NO CHANGES 2 THE BITRATE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
[/b][/quote]Okaaay. But that has nothing to do with the point i was making. Different encoding formats create virtually the same size file at 192 kbps. The id tags would be added after the file was created.
So there ;)

Oh, and on spelling:-

isnt = isn&#39;t
cant= can&#39;t
satilite&satelite=satellite
:P

[mogadishu]

btw.. how fast is satellite?.. i mean if your a porn baron wouldnt u need a shitload of upload bandwidth?

[Mr. Blunt]

Were&#39;s DrunkeNStylE at? I&#39;m waiting for him to make a come back.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt@24 September 2003 - 21:16
Were&#39;s DrunkeNStylE at? I&#39;m waiting for him to make a come back.
guess he got scared out of musicworld.

[silent VI]

:rolleyes: so what if i cant spell i just feel sorry for all the people who have the time on there hands to correct my spelling for me feel free to correct all my posts for me spider dude and LTJ ( :P Feels good to know i have groupys like you caring enough ta correct my sh** for me ahahhahhhahha :P keep up the good work kids ;) )


:P :P :P :P :P :P :P FLAM ONE THERE LIL BUDDY :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[silent VI]

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: SHAKEN in my boots :rolleyes:

[Celerystalksme]

Originally posted by Spider_dude@25 September 2003 - 03:49
by bigtime porn baron i meant people who sell it, not people who masterbate to it constantly, celery&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Who says i don&#39;t sell it...everybody loves used porn :D :lol:

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Celerystalksme+24 September 2003 - 21:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Celerystalksme @ 24 September 2003 - 21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Spider_dude@25 September 2003 - 03:49
by bigtime porn baron i meant people who sell it, not people who masterbate to it constantly, celery&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Who says i don&#39;t sell it...everybody loves used porn :D :lol: [/b][/quote]
haha.

[silent VI]

rnt u kinda contradictin urself here?????&nbsp;


:P i tend to do that

[LTJBukem]

DrunkeNStylE. Mate, i&#39;d never be so pedantic to pick up on spelling mistakes. It was actually mogadishu&#39;s spelling i was correcting, and only because he was picking fault with yours. ;)

Here&#39;s another example:-


Originally posted by mogadishu@ 24 September 2003 - 20:58
btw.. how fast is satellite?.. i mean if your a porn baron wouldnt u need a shitload of upload bandwidth?

Wouldnt = Wouldn&#39;t.

Glass houses...... :lol:

[Spider_dude]

i wasn&#39;t picking up on your spelling as simple typos are inevitable i was picking up on your "hick" grammar.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by Spider_dude@ 25 September 2003 - 17:07
i wasn&#39;t picking up on your spelling as simple typos are inevitable(full stop) i was picking up on your "hick" grammer. :lol: :lol: :lol: He means grammar. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Spider_dude]

no i meant grammar.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+25 September 2003 17:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem &#064; 25 September 2003 17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Spider_dude@ 25 September 2003 - 17:07
i wasn&#39;t picking up on your spelling as simple typos are inevitable(full stop) i was picking up on your "hick" grammer. :lol: :lol: :lol: He means grammar. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Spider_dude@ 25 September 2003 - 17:07
i wasn&#39;t picking up on your spelling as simple typos are inevitable i was picking up on your "hick" grammar.

This post has been edited by Spider_dude on 25 September 2003 - 17:35[/quote]

Oh, and you might want to also edit your grammar.


:lol: :lol:

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+25 September 2003 - 09:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 25 September 2003 - 09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> DrunkeNStylE. Mate, i&#39;d never be so pedantic to pick up on spelling mistakes. It was actually mogadishu&#39;s spelling i was correcting, and only because he was picking fault with yours. ;)

Here&#39;s another example:-

<!--QuoteBegin-mogadishu@ 24 September 2003 - 20:58
btw.. how fast is satellite?.. i mean if your a porn baron wouldnt u need a shitload of upload bandwidth?

Wouldnt = Wouldn&#39;t.

Glass houses...... :lol: [/b][/quote]
im missing a &#39;.. thats it, hes entire sentence is one word almost.

[Spider_dude]

can we start a new thread where we pick faults with each others "grammar" and spelling, cos this is quite lame really, and not really associated to musicworld.

thanks.

[silent VI]

can we start a new thread where we pick faults with each others "grammar" and spelling, cos this is quite lame really, and not really associated to musicworld.

thanks.



:rolleyes: sounds like so much fun

[silent VI]

:P