whats the best prog to do this?
And how much quality is lost?
BT Rep: +1
whats the best prog to do this?
And how much quality is lost?
Shut that cunt’s mouth or I’ll come over there and fuckstart her head.
Frequent visitor
dBpowerAmp with the WMA plug-in. No loss of quality noticable.
-- They tell me tomorrow will never arrive, but I've seen it end a million times. --
BT Rep: +1
thanksOriginally posted by nostalgia@2 July 2004 - 12:19
dBpowerAmp with the WMA plug-in. No loss of quality noticable.
Shut that cunt’s mouth or I’ll come over there and fuckstart her head.
Poster
BT Rep: +3
that kinda depends on your audio setup, doesnt it............Originally posted by nostalgia@2 July 2004 - 13:19
No loss of quality noticable.
Frequent visitor
That's why I said noticable and not no loss at all.
-- They tell me tomorrow will never arrive, but I've seen it end a million times. --
Poster
BT Rep: +3
no, i get that, what i mean was that if you have onboard audio, with cheap speakers you might not hear the diffrence, but that wouldnt nessisarily mean that someone with an expensive card and 400 dollar speakers wouldnt either
dint mean 2 dis you or anything.........
Frequent visitor
No worries.
Used dBpowerAmp with WMA plug-in myself and burned the audio output for listening on normal HiFi, that's why i concluded no noticable loss of quality.
-- They tell me tomorrow will never arrive, but I've seen it end a million times. --
BT Rep: +1
arrgggh!
the reason why i asked was that i just bought a new mp3 which plays wma as well as mp3 and holds nearly double the amount of wma to mp3.
now i converted some and they are nearly exactly the same size...
what have i done wrong? i am using 192 for both. does the player compress them and u get more that way?
Shut that cunt’s mouth or I’ll come over there and fuckstart her head.
---
I am no expert with .wma files, but if you were to encode mp3 at 192kbits/s it would be the same quality as a wma file that was encoded at a less bit rateOriginally posted by hungrylilboy@2 July 2004 - 15:23
now i converted some and they are nearly exactly the same size...
what have i done wrong? i am using 192 for both. does the player compress them and u get more that way?
this is how I think it works, and I'm sure if I've got it wrong then someone will correct me
BT Rep: +1
I am no expert with .wma files, but if you were to encode mp3 at 192kbits/s it would be the same quality as a wma file that was encoded at a less bit rateOriginally posted by AndrewBarker+2 July 2004 - 16:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AndrewBarker @ 2 July 2004 - 16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hungrylilboy@2 July 2004 - 15:23
now i converted some and they are nearly exactly the same size...
what have i done wrong? i am using 192 for both. does the player compress them and u get more that way?
this is how I think it works, and I'm sure if I've got it wrong then someone will correct me [/b][/quote]
so...i have to encode the wma's at half the mp3 size, which is how the player gets twice as many on?
Shut that cunt’s mouth or I’ll come over there and fuckstart her head.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks