- Status
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
You convert songs from MP3 to WMA whatever and they sound nice? Cool
Nope. I keep them at mp3 only now. But my old songs are in 256 kbps WMA. The only portable media player I got is my K750i & for that I convert all songs in 128 kbps mp4 (sounds better then 128 kbps mp3). Since I m not an Audiophile, I can hardly tell the difference & yeah, I do have good quality headphones. (Philips SHP 8900)
mail2and
Walking, since 2004.
IronManForever
IronMan; Ready to Roll...
Silly apple; why a cutdown. Classic 160Gb was a great and a selling model. 
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Thats stupid. Converting MP3 to WMA 10.2 pro, even if you use wave in the middle, would result in actually a LOSS IN QUALITY. When you get audio in a certain low bitrate lossy format, its best to keep it the way it is. Or just download a copy ripped with your favourite encoder.
WMA 10.2 pro is for ripping directly from lossless sources like CDs, FLAC/WavPack, etc.
Remember: When it comes to audio, transcoding from lossy formats is EVIL.
infra_red_dude
Wire muncher!
I think the discussion is about the new iPods and not WMP/WMA or MP3!
The new iPod Touch looks great.. and is good bargain for $229!!
The new iPod Touch looks great.. and is good bargain for $229!!
dr_jimit
Journeyman
Coverflow is SUperb !!!
works on windows also.
Just an Eye Candy.... On my iTunes [Same as on iPhone ]
*img141.imageshack.us/img141/4753/itunescoverflowzo2.jpg
if u dont have tagged them USE Media Monkey its the easyiest .....
IronManForever
IronMan; Ready to Roll...
I'm amazed why such efficient formats like flac, and to an extent ogg vorbis(?); they dont get popular and into general use. The stupid 15 yr old mp3 is still showing its ugly face every time new songs come up.
IronManForever
IronMan; Ready to Roll...
^^^ Is it?
A 320 kbps mp3 would take around 15 MB for the same.
But storage spaces have increased to a great extent. 10 years ago, the HDD drive bought by some people was around 5 GB. Now its around 500 GB. A 100 times increase. Cant we afford a 2.33 time increase in file size?
Dont know about ogg vorbis(though its lossy but better than mp3 I believe)? Also AAC is something that is gaining popularity, but dont know about it much. Wikipedia-ing now.
A 320 kbps mp3 would take around 15 MB for the same.
But storage spaces have increased to a great extent. 10 years ago, the HDD drive bought by some people was around 5 GB. Now its around 500 GB. A 100 times increase. Cant we afford a 2.33 time increase in file size?
Dont know about ogg vorbis(though its lossy but better than mp3 I believe)? Also AAC is something that is gaining popularity, but dont know about it much. Wikipedia-ing now.
Last edited:
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
You could’ve used better artwork and a smaller image though.
Like this:
*idisk.mac.com/aayush/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Cover_Flow-20080912-073213.jpg
I know I’m showing off. Is that a crime now?
kumarmohit
Technomancer
I'm amazed why such efficient formats like flac, and to an extent ogg vorbis(?); they dont get popular and into general use. The stupid 15 yr old mp3 is still showing its ugly face every time new songs come up.
Because it is the most widely usable audio file format. You can not beat the fact that we have gadgets called mp3 players! Ever heard of AAC player or FLAC player or Ogg Vorbis player. Most of the people do not care about quality. They want the same file to be usable in widest possible areas, No transcoding and reencoding cr@p
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Well, ALAC is just not right today (Its NOT apple lossless audio codec. Its Advanced lossless audio codec, and is owned by the same guys who made MP4 and MPEG. Apple just uses it...) . Since the lossless revolution was sphereheaded by FLAC, FLAC is the most popular lossless codec (even METALLICA uses it) and its damn fast with decent compression at level 5 (level 8 is useless) and actually HAS support in many PMPs and other hardware. And WavPack is the winner in terms of efficiency and uniqueness, with an awssome ripping mode called hybrid lossless, with it creating a lossy high quality around 320 kbps audio track and a "correction" file for it which makes the audio lossless. The two can be used together as lossless audio file, and its good for backup. The lossy part can be kept on the PMP for playback. This saves precious time spent on seperately ripping first to mp3/vorbis/aac, then to flac/tak/alac.
goobimama
Macboy
ALAC, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec (I don't care who invented it first, that's what iTunes uses) is very much the right way to go for Apple, if they choose to sell lossless audio that is.
The thing with selling lossless audio, is that most people don't give a damn about it. Busy listening to music on their default iPod earbuds, no one can tell the difference between a 128kbps aac and a 256kbps aac.
So why make someone buy a 35MB track when they can get the same one at 3MB? Also, offering 35MB tracks would also mean huge amount of bandwidth being used up on the Apple servers.
And Metallica is not god. They've lost it after they lost Jason Newstead and got that idiot Apeman bassist. And those irritating toms of Lars in St. Anger were just the limit
The thing with selling lossless audio, is that most people don't give a damn about it. Busy listening to music on their default iPod earbuds, no one can tell the difference between a 128kbps aac and a 256kbps aac.
So why make someone buy a 35MB track when they can get the same one at 3MB? Also, offering 35MB tracks would also mean huge amount of bandwidth being used up on the Apple servers.
And Metallica is not god. They've lost it after they lost Jason Newstead and got that idiot Apeman bassist. And those irritating toms of Lars in St. Anger were just the limit
MetalheadGautham
AFK
reason ?
they are NOT the same. you can't transcode aac to whatever format you want without loosing quality.
lossless means freedom. you can do the same things with it as you do with a cd you bought.
how can you use your 128kbps aac from itunes store on your car's mp3 player which only supports mp3 ?
load on servers ? oh sh!t... they charge a ransom for their albums and they can't offer larger files ?
listen to Death Magnetic and you will eat your words.
wait for the review on my blog.
robert trujillo is NOT an idiot. he is one of the best bassists alive and pwns jason.
those metallic toms were kinda cool on just one or two songs, but they otherwise sucked. in dm, they appear only in 2 songs where they sound good.
and what the hell ? the topic is something and we are discussing something else
OP
iMav
The Devil's Advocate
Hmmm ... I don't understand some people AT ALL. 35 friggin' MB for a song! LOL! Such comments are only to find outrageously stupid short-comings in a service provided. If one is so desperate to get songs that are 35MB in size each, then find another service.
I cannot afford to store songs that are 35MB in size on my iPod. It is 7 times the size of one song my iPod right now. Which essentially means that for every 1 song of some I_give_a_sh!t_about loss-less crap, I lose 7 songs of pretty decent quality at 256kbps. Which then translates to lesser no. of videos & portable applications & useful data.
No thank you. As much as I hate the iPod, I laugh at people who want a 35MB song.
I cannot afford to store songs that are 35MB in size on my iPod. It is 7 times the size of one song my iPod right now. Which essentially means that for every 1 song of some I_give_a_sh!t_about loss-less crap, I lose 7 songs of pretty decent quality at 256kbps. Which then translates to lesser no. of videos & portable applications & useful data.
No thank you. As much as I hate the iPod, I laugh at people who want a 35MB song.
- Status