Hemlock Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 I had a thought (untested by me yet). I find 64 kps too low quality, but 128kps too space consuming. What if I had MP3's sampled to 96Kps (just right for size/quality), would there be a way to get those onto a MD without changing the size/quality. for example, if I transferred it at the LP2/LP4, would it convert it to ATRAC3 at 128kps without increasing the size/quality? what about the SImpler Burner in the thread Sticky, would that work? anyone have any luck with 96 kps? I'm just not crazy about 64 kps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 not really sure where to start on this one. 96k for mp3's tend to be considered low end and nasty sounding. 128 is the lowere end for the standard out there with 196 becomming more and more popular. anyway when you transfer them to md via netmd they are transfered at best lp2 even if you tell it to store in sp mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 I know 96 is not great, but it beats 64. I'm concerned with size (in this instance), so my question is, if I convert an MP3 at 96 kpbs, then transfer it to MD at LP2, how much space will it take up? I'm guessing that it will take up more space than a 64kbs (LP4) but less than a 128 Kps (LP2) while having a sound quality somewhere in between (96 kps). anyway thats the theory, I agree the quality is not great, but I'd like the size if my idea is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAjEsTiC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 What if I had MP3's sampled to 96Kps (just right for size/quality), would there be a way to get those onto a MD without changing the size/quality. for example, if I transferred it at the LP2/LP4, would it convert it to ATRAC3 at 128kps without increasing the size/quality?from wot i kno i don't think this is possible...to transfer the files onto MD it basically goes by the time it goes 4 and not the size of the music file...i think regardless of the way you encode it an mp3 encoded at 96kbps and the same one at 192kbps would take up the same amount of space on the MD if you transfer it over at say LP2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 maybe I'll do a test, 64 is really not good enough, 96 is a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 When you transfer music to Minidisc, it's translated from MP3 into Sony's format called ATRAC. ATRAC only has three settings - SP (~300kbps) , LP2 (~150kbps) and LP4 (~75kbps). Only LP2 and LP4 are available in NetMD. No matter what it is you're sending through NetMD, it's put into LP2 or LP4, whichever you choose. There are no in-between bitrates on MD. So for example, if you take a 5-minute, 96kbps MP3 on your computer and put it on MD in LP2, it will take up the same amount of space as a 5-minute 192kbps MP3 transferred in LP2, or even a 320kbps 5-minute MP3 transferred in LP2. ... For music from your own CD's, I recommend you copy from the CD to your computer in WAV format and transfer the wAV's to NetMD, or else use some other NetMD software that lets you just transfer from an audio-CD straight to Minidisc. And as far as downloaded MP3's go... transfer them as-is. Just about anything you do to them could make them sound worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 that answers it. thanks I'm currently ripping my collection at 128, I should probably rip it at 196 huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Actually there is no such thing as 196... it's 192. If I were you I'd rip at whatever works best for you as far as hard drive space is concerned. It just takes a little math involving how many audio-CD's you own and intend to buy in the near future, vs how much hard drive space you're willing to devote to MP3's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 I have a 200 Gig HD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAjEsTiC Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 i kno of ppl who have an 80gb hdd and still like to d/l 320kbps mp3's whenever possible...and from that msg i don't see that hdd space is an issue for u...so y not make advantage of higher bitrates??? just a suggestion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 do you suppose that a 320 kps MP3 converted to LP2 will sound better than a 196kps MP3 converted to LP2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAjEsTiC Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 in terms of sound quality yes...i would say that it would sound better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 well I should be doing that then eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Yes. For making MP3's, I recommend you use the executable version of Lame 3.90.3. If you need any help setting it up, please don't hesitate to write here again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 what makes it preferrable to CDex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAjEsTiC Posted November 8, 2003 Report Share Posted November 8, 2003 i prefer Lame as well...basically the best encoder out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemlock Posted November 8, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2003 IS IT COMMAND LINE OPERATED?!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 Yes. The reason for this is because 19 out of 20 people use it from inside other programs, so an actual GUI inside Lame.exe itself would not only bloat the size of the program a bit, but wouldn't serve any purpose for the vast majority of its users. Trust me, Lame's operation is something you really don't need to think about at all once you have it set up properly in a frontend like RazorLame or inside your ripper (e.g. AudioGrabber). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.