[access-uk] Re: Music files
- From: "Kevin Lloyd" <kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:25:39 -0000
Hi Ray.
If you rip music from CD you don't have to worry about DRM - that's only
really an issue when purchasing music downloads.
Regards.
Kevin
E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray's Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
> Thank you Kevin, and I did post a correction re. not having to uncompress
> lossless audio
> before playing. The WMA lossless format I didn't know about, but I guess
> that being
> Microsoft it has got scope for DRM as well as ID tags.
>
> I should say my interest is mainly in very high quality personal use at
> home and maybe
> transfering high quality audio of my own creation for burning onto Cd at
> other locations.
> Trouble is though for that I'd probably need a more costly connection
> allowing fast upload
> times.
>
> From Ray
> I can be contacted off-list at:
> mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Kevin Lloyd
>
>
> Hi Ray.
>
> You don't need to uncompress a lossless format file - it's compressed in
> much the same way as lossy formats. The difference is that the
> compression
> does not apply any psychoacoustic algorithms to throw away parts of the
> music that the encoder thinks you either can't hear or don't care about.
>
> WMA lossless is supported by far more than any other lossless format,
> excluding WAV but, of course, has the advantage over WAV of supporting ID3
> tags.
>
> Regards.
>
> Kevin
> E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray's Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
>
>
>> Not sure folks if you might not be a bit on the wrong track here.
>>
>> My understanding of lossless audio formats is that they work rather like
>> zip files, i.e.
>> they have to be uncompressed before playing them. I don't think playback
>> is like MP3 or
>> other copanded formats. If I'm right, then the resulting umcompressed
>> file should be a .wav
>> or maybe AIFF file, which would be CD quality or higher, depending on the
>> original sampling
>> rate and bit depth of the file.
>>
>> I shall go again and look at such formats as Monkeys and flack - however
>> they are spelt -
>> because this is of interest to me for transfering files to be burnt as CD
>> audio.
>>
>> From Ray
>> I can be contacted off-list at:
>> mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
>> Of Andy Collins
>>
>>
>> Kevin and Barry, thanks for the clarification, it was Microsoft that
>> clamed
>> Lossless files produced superior quality sound to MP3; I'm with you
>> Barry,
>> I
>> have always found MP3 at 192 KBPS to be my preferred listen over similar
>> WMA
>> files.
>>
>> Flack I haven't heard about before, and maybe before I go there, what I'd
>> really like to do is find the Driver that will enable me to play my
>> downloaded DRM files on the Phone.
>> -
>>
>> Andy
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dj Paddy" <mygroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:54 PM
>> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
>>
>>
>> Kevint his is all very true.
>>
>> The trouble with alot of the lossless compression formats though is
>> either,
>>
>> A. They dont' sound as good. or
>> B. In formats such as flack who do sound as good if not better, very
>> little
>> portible units support their playback.
>>
>> Mainly because codecs aren't written for them or can't be because the
>> information needed to write the codecs isn't in the public domain. i.e.
>> the
>> companys won't tell people the info they need to write the codecs.
>>
>> WMA imho does not sound as good as mp3. I find there's alot of treble in
>> WMA and mp3 sounds more natural.
>>
>> Als I find navigating through an mp3 more seemless than wma on the
>> comuter
>> with winamp and my Iriver h340.
>>
>> You notice the difference between wma and mp3 in really good audio
>> speakers
>> or headphones from somebody like Zenhiser.
>>
>> Andy, I'm guessing your thinking of the amount of music you can get on
>> your
>> phone?
>>
>> if you can get a plugin or player for the phone that can play flack I'd
>> go
>> for it.
>>
>> Don't re-encode mp3s though, re-rip or re-download in an uncompressed
>> format
>> or you will notice quality of the audio suffering.
>>
>> I encode my mp3s at 192 44 natural stereo and don't feel there's anything
>> wrong with that. Let alone enough to make me switch to a format that's
>> not
>> going to offer as compressed files and thus less files I can fit on a
>> smaller storage medium.
>> Just some thoughts.
>> Dj paddy
>> Ôà
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kevin Lloyd" <kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:40 PM
>> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Music files
>>
>>
>> Hi Andy.
>>
>> It's absolutely true that lossless formats will produce a better quality
>> music file than MP3. MP3 is a lossy format and so throws away some of
>> the
>> music to compress the file right down to the smallest size possible.
>> Lossless formats such as WMA lossless and FLAC will produce a much larger
>> file than MP3 because they do not throw away any of the musical content..
>> An MP3 file can be encoded at a maximum bit rate of 320 kbps whereas a
>> lossless format will encode the same file at around 900 to 1000 kbps so
>> it's
>> likely to be 3 times larger than the equivalent MP3. The lossless file
>> will
>> be smaller than the equivalent uncompressed WAV file which is typically
>> encoded around the 1300 kbps mark but will certainly not be smaller than
>> lossy formats such as MP3, OGG and the like.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Kevin
>> E-mail: kevin.lloyd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andy Collins" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Access-Uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:09 PM
>> Subject: [access-uk] Music files
>>
>>
>>> Hi all - Does anybody know about using Lossless as oppose to MP3 for
>>> music
>>> files? I think Lossless is supposed to produce smaller files than MP3,
>>> but
>>> with better sound quality?
>>> -
>>> Andy
>>
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
>
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts: