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's in mp3's or the not editable annoyin info on the microshit format........... as mp3's allow u 2 add more info (2 diffrent tag'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!!!!!
and thnx 2 my boss payin me E500 an hour i can aford that...........Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36
2)what about satillite
stfu man, not every1 can get that shit............. and even if u can, ur still dependant on the weather............
<!--QuoteBegin-DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36Originally posted by DrunkeNStylE@24 September 2003 - 07:36
i know english buddy
2)what about satillite[/quote]
rnt u kinda contradictin urself here?????![]()
![]()
Bookmarks