How to convert mp3 files to play in a regular CD player?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by dogbarber, Dec 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. avisitor

    avisitor Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    188
    To a degree, but I would argue that there is a point where unless you have the specific intent of going right back to CD Lossless is a waste of precious HD space. On the other hand, if you are incorporating music into a video/film (check the copyright first!!!) it's best to rip Lossless and then compress the audio all at once.
     
  2. TungstenEguy

    TungstenEguy T|E biased & proud of it!

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    I agree with you for the most part, though nobody said anything about using lossless for archival purposes. Still, how can you know your intent in the future use of your archived audio files? Keeping in mind, any lossy encoding method will result in some decimation of the content, and any further encodings will again further decimate the content.

    I argue that many audio sources that have a high dynamic range do not compress very well at the most common MP3 bit-rate of 128 kbps. It may sound over-modulated and with distortion or artifacts, which also results in a very poor source for re-encoding purposes. If one must use MP3 for whatever reason, 192 is a much better choice than 128, and a fair trade-off between quality and size.

    The thing is, whether any of this even matters to you (read: anyone), since generally speaking, most don't notice the differences in quality I am speaking of, except those with so-called "golden ears" that complain when A-B comparisons are made. There are some things I wont put in MP3, for example most Pink Floyd just doesn't compress well, while most "pop" music is so compressed (different kind of compression, the dynamic range of the audio itself) that it can sound almost perfect at 128kbps MP3.

    See, this is why I said "poorly" in my post, since a well encoded file can sound almost perfect to most anyone.

    Man, when all this was analog, back before everything was digital, no one ever worried about any of this lossy/lossless debate.
     
  3. avisitor

    avisitor Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Well said! Of course that's why I'd argue that MPEG2 - Part 7 (AAC) is a much better compression format, less loss for the file size.
     
  4. TungstenEguy

    TungstenEguy T|E biased & proud of it!

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    23
    I agree with you, again.

    AAC is an excellent codec (perhaps the best choice) for consumers to use. If it's good enough for Dolby labs, it's good enough for me. :D
     
  5. dogbarber

    dogbarber No one in particular...

    Messages:
    4,734
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Um, fellas, what language are you speaking? It sorta' sounds like english.:D

    seriously, thank you.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page