Skip to main content
Topic: [OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable (Read 7459 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #25

Regarding your sense for being objective - how can testing which is performed by various individuals, each with his/her own music taste, hearing ability and philosophy be objective?

How rude, he didn't even bother to read the FAQ! Like a surly salesman who doesn't wipe his feet, and just steps through the door...

[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #26
I heard of this forum few days ago, and I just could not believe someone is spending time perfecting something that's designed to be imperfect to begin with.

Well it's a bl**dy good job somebody did sunshine, otherwise your "mp3 player" wouldn't be much use! How do you think mp3 came into existence, and came to work as well as it does?

"I just could not believe someone is spending time perfecting something that's designed to be imperfect to begin with."

Lossy codecs are designed to represent audio signals at a much lower bitrate than linear PCM. Psychoacoustic based codecs do this by taking advantage of how the human ear works. The design aim is to get the bitrate down whilst delivering an audio signal which sounds the same as the original. There's no desire to be "imperfect" as far as the listener is concerned!

Whether the result can be "perfect" is almost a philosophical question!

However, you can measure how many people('s ears!) you can fool, for how much of the time, and see how close you are. The result is somewhere in the 99 point several nines percent for a well tuned codec these days. If it was really "designed to be imperfect", then it's failing this design goal a heck of a lot of the time!

Maybe you don't understand that a digital audio signal can be numerically altered, yet still sound identical to (even the best) human ears. If you're interested you could learn a lot here.

If you're not, that's OK. Thankfully people are allowed to be interested in different things, and we'll carry on being interested in this, if that's alright with you?


[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #27

I'm truly sorry if i hurt your feelings, but i stated several times that I greatly appreciate your work. I was just hoping that somebody would agree with me (despite technology) that MP3 is designed to offer minimal filesize with still accepting quality. I agree with you on many things, but I don't understand your ideas for building music library on computer, and throwing discs and vinyl down the toilet. MP3 sould be for taking to the beach, for boring traffic jams, for motivation while studyng (like me - maritime law, at the moment). I'm just being practical. I wanted advice on MP3 in that sense - I'm not trying to throw traditional way of listening music away.

So please, accept my apologies and long live!

[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #28
Haha, just use Lame with --alt-preset standard.  Its dead easy, and its not overkill

[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #29
That's OK ToMo.

and I don't think many people here have thrown away their CDs! A lot of folks play their music from PC all the time though.

btw, having read your original post, I nearly replied early in this thread to say that you might as well use a fast burst mode ripper, and an FhG encoder at 128kbps - and ony ask your question here again if this isn't good enough!

Anyway, have fun with --alt-preset standard.


[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #30
I heard everything I wanted to hear from you, but don't spit on me because I don't follow your religion and philosophy.

No one has spitted on you. The reason people keep answering your posts is not because you disagree but because you are being rude against us when we only tried to answer your questions and to be helpful.

You are the one spitting on us by keep claiming that we spit on you...


[OFFENSIVE] Optimal MP3s for cheap portable

Reply #31
Not wishing to fuel the argument  ... but I notice noone has suggested WMA even though it was mentioned that this Samsung portable supports it. Would be worth your while doing some quick comparisons to see which format gives you the better quality / file size ratio. I did exactly that for use with my portable, and like it or not I concluded that WMA (9, STD) was far superior to LAME.

(edit) sorry, just read your other post and realised you've already tried this.

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020