Printable View
Personally i dont think you can but there i no harm in asking. I have been after CHER songs for ages and i downloaded about a 945meg of songs but the turned out to be rubbish in a way. The quality was 96kpbs by 22khz i altered them to 128kpbs by 44khz and they sound heaps better. Do i need to put up with quality they are or just delete them and keep looking again.
Delete them.
They have already been encoded in a really low quality which means you have already lost plenty of sound quality and you wont get it back by encoding at a higher bitrate this actually makes it worse.
how many songs did you download? if they were encoded in 96Kbps at 22Khz they would be tiny.
Once a song has been encoded really low its set like that, because it deletes all the frequencies that your not wanting. You cant make it better because you cant get those frqeuncies back.
Cher oh you poor basterd ! I tease tho as my wife likes her . What are you using for music p2p ? Soulseek or Limewire lets you choose from different bit rates as most do but at least gives better options .
Been getting torrents from isohunt as limewire have bugger all. Rather listen to some of the older music then some of whats out these days all about suicide. The kids of today are screwed up inside enough without listening to what they do, all you ever hear about is drugs, murder and suicide. Maybe if they listen to something better there would be less violence and killings in schools. Just my thoughts.
What you're doing is called transcoding, and poor transcoding at that. You're taking the already compressed digital file and essentially expanding it. Think of it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Hunter
You have a picture of the Mona Lisa (this will represent a CD-quality or lossless file). You also have a smaller, compressed version (representing your compressed music file).
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3301/mona1hb8.png
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2673/mona2aj9.png
What you're doing is increasing the size and trying to fill in gaps with no information. By increasing the quality of the already compressed file, you'll end up with something like this:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5739/mona3ea5.png
Which is actually worse than the original. Make sure you download lossless files so that you can convert them to whatever you want; lossless files (FLAC, WAV) can be converted to any different quality without the transcode effect.
good job man, +1Quote:
Originally Posted by krunktasticWhat you're doing is called transcoding, and poor transcoding at that. You're taking the already compressed digital file and essentially expanding it. Think of it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Hunter
You have a picture of the Mona Lisa (this will represent a CD-quality or lossless file). You also have a smaller, compressed version (representing your compressed music file).
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3301/mona1hb8.png
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2673/mona2aj9.png
What you're doing is increasing the size and trying to fill in gaps with no information. By increasing the quality of the already compressed file, you'll end up with something like this:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5739/mona3ea5.png
Which is actually worse than the original. Make sure you download lossless files so that you can convert them to whatever you want; lossless files (FLAC, WAV) can be converted to any different quality without the transcode effect.
Did Mona Lisa Fart or ? .............. Shit will keep us guessing for years . Nice smile tho .
nice explanation on transcoding zaa lol i think OP shoulda gotten it by now.