Re: OT ... audio

On Dec 2, 3:10�am, Matt Ion <soundy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well first of all, the main factor in MP3 quality is the level of
compression - the more compression, the smaller the file, but the lower
the quality. �Typically you'll see MP3s listed with a "bitrate" -
128kbit is generally considered to be the lowest acceptable for decent
music reproduction and provides approximately 10:1 compression; 320kbit
is usually about the highest you'll see on downloaded material and
reduces the ratio to about 5:1 (exact compression ratio will vary with
the material).

Quality can also be somewhat affected by the codec
(compressor/decompressor) used to create the file, and to a smaller
degree by the codec used to play it back.

The player itself is pretty much a non-factor except where it may add
other effects or processing to the playback.

There are better-sounding compression formats... WMA (Windows Media
Audio) can often be "cleaner" while allowing lower bitrates (and thus
smaller files); FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is another common codec
that in theory at least causes no loss of quality, but generally only
compresses by about 2:1. �If you're jamming stuff onto a portable player
or "ripping" CDs to hard disk, you can also just rip straight to
uncompressed WAV format, with no quality loss but no space reduction either.

As to why... when you figure that CD-quality audio, at 44.1kHz, 16-bit,
two-channel sampling, requires 176,400 bytes *per second*, or just over
10MB per minute (not including overhead), a 10:1 space savings can be
substantial, which was the original attraction of MP3 in the days when
just about everyone was still using dialup. �A full 640MB/72-minute CD
can be reduced to <60MB; 10 CDs' worth of music can be fit on a single
CD-R, or upward of 65-70 full albums on a DVD-R.

As far as installing playback devices, well, it really depends on the
type of device. �If you're plugging in a portable, most can just use a
standard 1/8"-stereo-headphone-plug-to-RCA adapter cable plugged into a
stereo line input on the receiver. �Some receivers now have a 1/8" input
jack in the front to allow easy plugin of portable players. �There are a
few "component" playback units out there, but they're rare, since they
generally don't provide any better quality or functionality than their
portable cousins, without the benefit of being portable.

More popular are streaming-media receivers that will connect to your
home network (usually via wireless) and pull music and video files off
your PC or a media server. �Some also have the capability to connect to
streaming "internet radio" stations. �These are generally designed to
not be portable, and to integrate better aesthetically with a home system..-

Thanks Matt,

At least now I'll have a little bit of information under my hat so
that I'll sound a little bit knowledgeable.

At this point, I just need to know enough to set up an MP 3 player for
someone. I don't even know how to use one, so I was thinking maybe I
should buy a cheap one so I can learn how to handle it.

These "streaming media players" are they considered a computer device
or an audio device? I've never seen one advertised but of course, not
being interested in one myself, I may have just not noticed them. I'll
start looking now. That sounds like it might be something I personally
would be interested in, if the sound quality were there. I'd guess
you'd need a "better" sound card in your computer to be able to
reproduce better sound (?) Or would you think the computers streaming
outputs basic quality is( what I consider bad) the same a MP3? I've
got probably about 2000 records going back to the time of the Victrola
forward to about the 70's or so. I've got a Victrola and a couple of
good record players also. I don't get to listen much anymore but maybe
someday I'll put them on CD / DVD disk ..... if I ever decide to
retire. And nowdays it looks like you can download just about anything
that was ever recorded.

Again, thanks for the preview.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: best archiver? (for music)
    ... If you care for quality, you should read up on what you are doing before you start it. ... Applying lossy compression twice -- even with the same codec -- might give you artifacts that will not appear with just one run. ... The difference between lame with good settings and a bad mp3 encoder is probably bigger than between some better codec and mp3. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Philadelphia Orchestra adds over 30 downloads to Online Music Store
    ... compression algorithm, and the hearing of the test subjects). ... Now no doubt there are differences - there have to be as despite using very high quality, high bit-rate MP3s, a good deal of information has been discarded. ... A sample from this recording can be heard on our homepage - the full release will be available on MP3 from Monday, complete with bi-lingual sleevenotes, cover artwork etc. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: DIP9 Default save settings
    ... JPG compression is done on colors and when you select a lower quality it is ... Did DIP9 discard pixels? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.photos)
  • Re: is OTA TV doomed?
    ... I posted the same observation about 1080i OTA - the dam artifacts ... "dumb downing" the signal with more compression? ... half the bits needed while still matching MPEG2's quality. ... Both St and Cable could bring you 50 channels of true 480i DVD ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: High-quality video in versatile camera?
    ... compression, compresses 10-to-1 or more with a noticeable quality hit. ... Mjpeg, which does not use temporal compression, must fit the same amount ... But digital still cameras don't try to provide hour-long ...
    (rec.photo.digital)