Printable View
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:
I use CDEX (free download) to make mp3 files.
It's a neat interface and names the tracks for you if you want.
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.
VBR is the ticket, why use a fixed bitrate, there's no need.
I used to use CDEX, but now I use something similar called AudioGrabber, for no other reason than I like the name better :smilie4:
CDEX has been improving you should give it a try.
VBR or 192.
320 or lossless is a waste of time and space IMHO
Well you should try AudioGrabber :snooty:
http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Why use something producing a spectrum of sound your amp or speakers doesn't cover anyway.
I will if you will. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Downloading now
I probably will have a look at CDEX when I get home
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.....
If you have it's a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
Some people actually prefer the sound of MP3 files to CDs tho.
:lol: are you joking, which tard said that?
'Tis true.
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl records compared to digital recordings too.
What I actually meant was...
I want the files to be as small as possible, how do I do that?
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:
Prolly mp4 @ 192kb (smaller than mp3)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
Gen up. In a test people were played both and asked which they prefer. Some folk consistently prefer MP3 to CD.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
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...
It's not really analogous. Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and if they are removed they prefer the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
And also the sound becomes less complex and therefore more pleasant to some people.
I know it's counter intuitive but it's true.
It has nothing to do with being mentally disabled or tone deaf, it's simply that they prefer how it sounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
JP you arse :lol:
I clicked the damn link
Now give me a serious answer
Twunt
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
True story
So it's to do with hearing problems then, fair enuff...:dabs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyIt has nothing to do with being mentally disabled or tone deaf, it's simply that they prefer how it sounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
Pfffft, Thank goodness I totally ignored your first link :glag:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchezSo it's to do with hearing problems then, fair enuff...:dabs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
pish....your saying:
= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
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...
Fair point, I wasn't thinking of hearing problems in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchezpish....your saying:
= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I was more talking about the second part, "audio awareness". They are aware of the sounds, they just don't like them.
It's not silly it's a matter of taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchezpish....your saying:
= hearing problems or lack of audio awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
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...
Replying to your busyedit btw.
Damn, I knew the Skweekster had queered me pitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
A matter of bad taste....or ignorance, that's no excuse...
Indeed, everyone thinks that taste which differs from theirs is bad taste.
That's kind of how it works.
Your argument is so pointless, you can always find someone with a differing opinion.....Lossless is better than lossy. Fact.
:no2:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by benchez
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
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.
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.