mp3 player virgin needs help

[Ms Piggy]

Okay so I've bought a very cheap little mp3 player - just a very basic Dick Smiths one for $40-. I've managed to put a bit of music on it but it only took about 50 songs, on the info it said it takes 60 mp3's or 120 wav files.

My question is...how do I convert my music to mp3 or wav format? I'm a complete novice when it comes to this. Is there software I can d/l? Or software I can buy?

I have a lot of music on iTunes (my own CD's and downloaded music)...ummmm, I d/l music through Limewire.

[onearmedbandit]

Converting to wav format will degrade the quality of the music. Stick with mp3.

[RiderInBlack]

I have a DSE 128Mb and a DSE 1Gb Players. I use Wins Media Player to "Rip" my CD's. I have the "Rip" setting to "Windows Media Audio" (WMA), which works well on my DSE's (look under "Tools" then "Options" on Windows Media Player).
I then use the Media Player to "Sync" WMA songs to the DSE via a USB port.

[xwhatsit]

Converting to wav format will degrade the quality of the music. Stick with mp3.

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Lol, first I've heard of that.

WAV files are lossless. They are the de facto raw format for audio data. If you convert an MP3 to WAV, you'll get a direct copy of the MP3 (with all the MP3 compression artefacts and hiss), except it'll be roughly 10x the file size.

WAV, being lossless, is the best quality you can get. However the file sizes are mega huge, as they are uncompressed in any way; there are other lossless formats which support some compression, but none as good as MP3 (which is lossy, so degrades the quality of music in exchange for smaller file sizes).

CSL (your parts are in the post, sorry it took so long, I sent them off a couple of days ago, spent the last week in bed with a virus :violin:), getting 50 MP3 files onto a player that was advertised as 60 MP3 files isn't bad. That 60 MP3 files rating is just an estimation -- an optimistic estimation. Really, the player has a set capacity, say 256MB. They make a guess that the average MP3 file is 5MB, and then just do the maths. If your average MP3 file is 6MB, because you have tracks that are a little longer than normal pop music, or they're higher quality MP3s, then you can fit less onto the 256MB player.

I think you might've got the advertising incorrect about the 60 MP3s and 120 WAVs, as WAVs are usually 10x the size of MP3s, so you'd expect to get about 6 WAVs.

[xwhatsit]

I have a lot of music on iTunes (my own CD's and downloaded music)...ummmm, I d/l music through Limewire.

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Oh yeah, just read this last little bit. Most music from Limewire will already be in MP3 form, just leave it as it is (if you re-encode it to MP3 you'll lose quality and may even gain file size). Stuff from iTunes may/may not be encoded as MP3. iTunes I believe can encode to MP3 if you right-click on the file. I haven't used it for a while, somebody else may be able to help.

But yeah, don't re-convert MP3 files to MP3 files, it's not smart.

[onearmedbandit]

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Lol, first I've heard of that.



Yeah just been pointed out to me. I'll stick to bikes.

[xwhatsit]

Yeah just been pointed out to me. I'll stick to bikes.

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>It's OK, sometimes I try and turn the throttle backwards :innocent:

[RiderInBlack]

<HINTS id=hah_hints></HINTS>
CSL
I think you might've got the advertising incorrect about the 60 MP3s and 120 WAVs, as WAVs are usually 10x the size of MP3s, so you'd expect to get about 6 WAVs.That's because she should have said "Windows Media Audio" (WMA), DSE Players take MP3 and WMA, not WAV (I know, I have 2 of DSE's). WMA files are smaller than MP3 and are as good quality depending the quality setting. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/demos/audio_quality_demos.aspx?locale=409&geoid=b7&version=11.0.5721.5145&userlocale=1409 for a comparison between MP3 and WMA.

PS: Don't try using Itunes files as DSE players can not read them, only use MP3 or WMA.

[Ms Piggy]

Thanks for the help people. :)

[SARGE]

Converting to wav format will degrade the quality of the music. Stick with mp3.

.wav's are actually uncompressed MP3.. far BETTER sound quality but huge files ... just have to make sure they are recorded at 44kHz x 16 bit stereo.. if you can rip your MP3 right off CD at 320 kbps x 44 kHz ( most ripping software will do this) you will have a really good sound quality.. still a huge file but you can convert to 192 easily enough ( i rip high and convert .. cant go the other way)


EDIT .. xerxesdaphat beat me to it

[RiderInBlack]

EDIT .. xerxesdaphat beat me to itBut ya still needed to read my post as it is WMA that we should have been talking about in relation to DSE Players not WAV:moon:.

[SARGE]

But ya still needed to read my post as it is WMA that we should have been talking about in relation to DSE Players not WAV:moon:.

true enough ... im a bit old school though .. 99.9% of my music is in MP3 format..

my last job in the States was at a classic rock radio station.. one day .. the new owners came in and told us that it would be switching formats t "URBAN"!!! ( Rap) and dumping the CR format forever .. i came in next day with my laptop and offside HD and dumped the entire music library onto my system.. all ripped at 320 x 44kHZ.. some rarities and a few full live concerts ( quadrophenia, ACDC, Deep Purple, Led Zep's last show, Clapton, floyd live wall in berlin.. etc)

ive trimmed it down to about 120 GB or so

[ZeroIndex]

Converting to wav format will degrade the quality of the music. Stick with mp3.
nevermind the high amount of space each song will take... you'll be lucky to fit more than a few songs on there... iTunes is a good way to go if you're ripping music off CD's... go to the
Edit - Edit Preferences
Advanced tab then Importing sub-tab
Change Import using: to Mp3 Encoder
Change Setting: to Higher Quality (192kbps)

[RiderInBlack]

quadrophenia, ACDC, Deep Purple, Led Zep's last show, Clapton, floyd live wall in berlin.Dam ya got some good shit there:Punk:I'm not exactly young myself. Still need to get some of my best music off LP's and 45's (really regret sale the odd one as I'm not likely ta hear them again), never mind what I have lost due to chewed up tapes:bye: My PC library is improving but too tight ta buy the songs I want.

[SARGE]

Dam ya got some good shit there:Punk:I'm not exactly young myself. Still need to get some of my best music off LP's and 45's (really regret sale the odd one as I'm not likely ta hear them again), never mind what I have lost due to chewed up tapes:bye: My PC library is improving but too tight ta buy the songs I want.

i thinks we should maybe have KB Music Trading day... load your laptops and meet at a cafe and USB to USB

[RiderInBlack]

[quote=ZeroIndex;1122292 iTunes is a good way to go if you're ripping music off CD's[/quote]Find that Windows Media Player does just as good job, and it's WMA file type is compatible with DSE Players. Have removed iTunes off my PC as it is a waste of space as far as I am concerned if ya don't have an iPod. Why have more than one programme on ya PC doing the same job if ya don't need to:weird:

[RiderInBlack]

i thinks we should maybe have KB Music Trading day... load your laptops and meet at a cafe and USB to USBHave done that with my DSE player off other PC play list (Thanks Neil:Punk:). Was awesome hearing "Dire Straits" songs I hadn't been able to play for ages. Their "Love Over Gold" concert at Western Springs was the first live concert I had gone to. They were so much more live than recorded:Punk:

[SARGE]

Find that Windows Media Player does just as good job, and it's WMA file type is compatible with DSE Players. Have removed iTunes off my PC as it is a waste of space as far as I am concerned if ya don't have an iPod. Why have more than one programme on ya PC doing the same job if ya don't need to:weird:

i just file them down into folders and sub folders.. i can find a specific song in about 30 seconds ..

also run a program called Tag & Rename .. lets me play around with the tags and dump my music folders down to a CSV ( Excel) file that i can hyperlink to the song folder

[cynna]

My question is...how do I convert my music to mp3 or wav format? I'm a complete novice when it comes to this. Is there software I can d/l? Or software I can buy?
.

cdex will do this for you. its free to download - just google it

[The Pastor]

I jsut bought a meizu m6 4b from ebay for 157$ landed, its mint as it has a pic of a motorbike as the wallpaper.

[SARGE]

Or software I can buy?




software .. BUY??? :rofl:

[Lias]

Converting to wav format will degrade the quality of the music. Stick with mp3.


<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Lol, first I've heard of that.

WAV files are lossless. They are the de facto raw format for audio data. If you convert an MP3 to WAV, you'll get a direct copy of the MP3 (with all the MP3 compression artefacts and hiss), except it'll be roughly 10x the file size.



Your both sort of right.

The most common format for WAV's is 44khz 16bit (which is lossless when copied from CD), but you can have wave files with lower bitrates which are lossy.


software .. BUY??? :rofl:

*grin* what he said..

[SARGE]

Your both sort of right.

The most common format for WAV's is 44khz 16bit (which is lossless when copied from CD), but you can have wave files with lower bitrates which are lossy.




some of the newer stuff ( soundforge and even the roxio stuff.. you can rip at 46kHz and even 52kHz up to 32 bit.. thats more for prosound applications though ..

[xwhatsit]

I jsut bought a meizu m6 4b from ebay for 157$ landed, its mint as it has a pic of a motorbike as the wallpaper.
Meizus are sweet. When they first came out, everybody branded them with the `Chinese clone manufacturer' label, but they quickly began producing some mint original hardware that is very good quality. The M6 is a lovely piece of kit, the screen is stunning. I'd just like more storage, I can't fit all my stuff as it is (just music, no videos) on my 30GB iPod.


The most common format for WAV's is 44khz 16bit (which is lossless when copied from CD), but you can have wave files with lower bitrates which are lossy.

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>It's worth pointing out the difference between lossy and lower sampling frequency. Lower frequency, lower bit width WAVs are not lossy -- i.e., they don't chuck out any data according to a bunch of rules, they are an accurate picture of the recorded data sampled at (e.g.) 22,000 times a second, opposed to 44,000 times a second; and there is only (e.g.) 8 bits to represent the data in, as opposed to 16 bits. MP3 files, being lossy, do not encode an accurate picture of the recorded data at 44,000 times with 16 bit resolution, despite having a 44KHz sample rate and 16 bit resolution, as they chuck out data based on a bunch of pre-defined rules.

The difference between lossy and lossless has nothing to do with sampling rates and bit width.

[The Pastor]

mp3s are smaller because they cut out all the stuff you cant hear on normal to midrange sound gear.


true anolog shit is like infinite in "size" isnt it? thats why ripping a tape gives you some MASSIVE files (i think i was reading in the gb range?)

[xwhatsit]

mp3s are smaller because they cut out all the stuff you cant hear on normal to midrange sound gear.


true anolog shit is like infinite in "size" isnt it? thats why ripping a tape gives you some MASSIVE files (i think i was reading in the gb range?)

Well the size of digital file you get when you rip a tape or LP depends wholly on what format you rip it into. A WAV file is only as big as it's sample rate and bit width. So if the tape is about as long as a CD, then it'll be about 650MB. In data terms, converting analogue data to digital form always results in needing more data storage. You can store a whole album onto a tape, but if you try recording digital data to it you can only store a few kilobytes, nowhere near enough to store the album in digital format.

Analogue isn't really infinite in size; what happens is that the resolution is very, very high and is not artificially limited like digital data has to be; there's no limit on the difference in pressure between two points in the track apart from molecular and physical limits. In practice, these waveforms, smooth and high resolution as they are, are very fragile and prone to data loss as they are transferred from place to place. So that's why digital recordings are used, even though digital recordings are only an approximation of it. The advantage with digital data is that it's very robust in transmission, so even though it is only part of the original data (i.e., it's only sampled 44,100 times a second), you'll lose none of that data while it remains within the digital section of your stereo/player.

So while you have less data, it's reproduced much more faithfully and much more reliably. So what you need to do is make sure you record enough data so that it still sounds good; 44,100 times a second is well more than most ears can understand, so that's OK. 16 bits of resolution in sound pressure levels is pretty adequate; a lot of recordings are done in 24 bit these days however. <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>

[The Pastor]

are u a sound engineer? or a geek?

[xwhatsit]

are u a sound engineer? or a geek?

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>A musician geek -- and that which is most hated and reviled, an audiophile :lol:

[The Lone Rider]

Ugh, this thread has so many rumours and misconceptions it hurts my head.

xerxesdaphat is the most spot on with all of that, but not all of what has been said is accurate either.

There are too many points to correct but..

All audio formats come in variations of bit rates, and frequency rates, and types of compression. All of that effects file size and quailty of what you listen to - also stereo or mono effects file size. What you are listening to however, is only as good as what you are running it out of. A shit amp and speakers or headphones is not going to sound any different from mp3 or wav file.

Nitpicking about what has better specs for 90% of the world is a waste of time, as maybe 5% of people have the gear to actually hear the subtle differences between some things (such as the difference between 44.1khz and 46khz), and out of that 5% maybe 3% actually have the ability/training to notice. Unless very obvious, the average person can't hear a difference between a 192kbps mp3 and a CD.

Mp3 works using many different things to bring the file size down. My memory isn't perfect, but it involves psychoacoustics and frequency masking.

The standard CD format known as RED BOOK, as out layed internationally, is 44.1khz frequency rate at 16bit depth. Analogue is a whole different ball park and is limited by how your gear handles electrical current. For magnetic tape, it is limited to the amount of magnetic particles it can retain before it can't retain anymore.

Recording anything over 44.1 and 16 bit is a complete waste of time unless you have

1. Decent gear
2. A sound card that can actually output those
3. A large hard drive

32bit encoded files usually are 32bit floating point files, and are audio files with a dynamic range set to raise if the music dynamics raise. This is a waste of time if you are not recording music. You do not need extra head room converting files. Especially if you are ripping from a CD, which will be 16 bit and 44.1khz - you gain nothing.

I think that covers a lot of it. Fuck that was a mouth full.

And if you want something to ooh and aahhh about - my computer runs at 24bit 96khz. I thought about getting the 192khz card, but I think 96khz is doing me fine

[xwhatsit]

Dyers is spot on, except on the 192KBps vs. CD response; it is in fact very easy to hear the difference between the two using a normal stereo and a reasonably cheap pair of canalphones. Rock music no -- but if you listen to any classical or jazz music, which tends to be less highly compressed (talking about sound compression here, not file/data compression), it's very easy to hear the difference in quiet moments and in high pitch notes.

That said, I encode in 192KBps usually.

Dyers also brings up a very important point that the rest of us have neglected -- encoding something at a higher bitrate than it was originally recorded (i.e. an ordinary album off a CD) is very silly, and can often result in a quality reduction unless the new sampling rate is a multiple of the original sampling rate.

Transcoding, for example from MP3 to WMA or WMA to MP3 or whatever you like is also going to result in dramatic quality loss.

[The Lone Rider]

Oh for trivias sake, the reason 44.1khz 16bit was decided as the red book standard has to do with one of the people on the committee listened to bach or bethoven or something like that... and anyway he commented that this one particular song is about 80 mins long and he has to turn over his tape/record in order to hear it all. So it is decided the format needs to fit about 80mins on, and by the way CDs are made, that meant audio had to be encoded at 44.1khz 16bit. The story is something along those lines anyway.

Oh, and more facts.. DVD Audio format is 24bit 96khz and is 5 channel (not two). Or at least is suppose to be. DVDA hasn't caught on in the world yet.

[The Lone Rider]

Dyers is spot on, except on the 192KBps vs. CD response; it is in fact very easy to hear the difference between the two using a normal stereo and a reasonably cheap pair of canalphones. Rock music no -- but if you listen to any classical or jazz music, which tends to be less highly compressed (talking about sound compression here, not file/data compression), it's very easy to hear the difference in quiet moments and in high pitch notes.


Thats fair enough to. I haven't tried that, and haven't mp3-a-fied my classical CDs.

But, based on the fact I've had more then one person tell me they can't hear a difference between 128kbps and a CD, I'd be surprised if they can hear the difference with 192. In fact I've had a rather vicious argument with a rather angry fat bastard who thought I was full of shit when I said I couldn't stand listening to 128kbps

[Badcat]

Okay so I've bought a very cheap little mp3 player - just a very basic Dick Smiths one for $40-. I've managed to put a bit of music on it but it only took about 50 songs, on the info it said it takes 60 mp3's or 120 wav files.

My question is...how do I convert my music to mp3 or wav format? I'm a complete novice when it comes to this. Is there software I can d/l? Or software I can buy?

I have a lot of music on iTunes (my own CD's and downloaded music)...ummmm, I d/l music through Limewire.

CSL asked about a simple solution to get music on her player - didn't she?
get an ipod.
easy to use, even if you are a novice.

(oh, and flame on, format geeks)
Ken

[The Pastor]

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>A musician geek -- and that which is most hated and reviled, an audiophile :lol:

what are you views on ICE?

[The Lone Rider]

CSL asked about a simple solution to get music on her player - didn't she?
get an ipod.
easy to use, even if you are a novice.

(oh, and flame on, format geeks)
Ken

Ipods suck. What a god damn waste of money.

Get yourself a decent mp4 player and never have to worry about format, have huge amount of file space, watch movies, listen to radio, store and view photos, and read text documents. All for around $160. Ipod can suck a fat one.

And if she asked how to get music on her player, why are you saying the way to get music on her player is to buy an ipod?

[Badcat]

Ipods suck. What a god damn waste of money.

Get yourself a decent mp4 player and never have to worry about format, have huge amount of file space, watch movies, listen to radio, store and view photos, and read text documents. All for around $160. Ipod can suck a fat one.

And if she asked how to get music on her player, why are you saying the way to get music on her player is to buy an ipod?


..riiiiight....
CSL wanted a simple solution to get music onto her player. her music is already in itunes.
plug in an ipod and it's done.
doesn't that answer her question and be kinda simple?
or would you rather try and prove that you are harder/smarter/more educated than me?
as i said, knock yourself out.

Ken

[The Lone Rider]

Yea, her player. Not an ipod

[xwhatsit]

what are you views on ICE?

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>ICE is an acronym that stands for a lot of things. I assume we're not talking about in-circuit emulation, or cryptography here?

[Ms Piggy]

software .. BUY??? :rofl:

I did say I'm a novice! :bleh:

[Ms Piggy]

plug in an ipod and it's done.

I don't have an iPod, I have a DSE mp3 player. iTunes appears to only be for iPod's. Also, don't want an iPod as they're not the best (according to consumer), and I don't buy into commercialism/consumerism...which IMO iPod is a part of big time. Anyway at the moment (being a poor student) I've opted for a 'cheap as yo Mama' DSE mp3 player.

[SARGE]

I don't have an iPod, I have a DSE mp3 player. iTunes appears to only be for iPod's. Also, don't want an iPod as they're not the best (according to consumer), and I don't buy into commercialism/consumerism...which IMO iPod is a part of big time. Anyway at the moment (being a poor student) I've opted for a 'cheap as yo Mama' DSE mp3 player.



i have a Phillips GoGear 512mb player .. works fine

get this software (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/).. cross platform freeware.. should convert your stuff to MP3 ( save as:)

[avgas]

Oh god i find this a funny read.
Its funny to see who has sold out to whom, as im from way back in the hay-day of mp3. The only thing music related at the time was remixed and looped midi files on an SB16 (if you were lucky) - because your mate upgraded his flash DX40 to play doom with actual music.
The II LC could only play one midi at a time, and Apple thought the only way to get music on your computer was to plug a big bloody cd-player onto your pc and play the CD...but you couldn't shuffle. Which made it more useless than the average ghetto blaster.
Then some time later, when i finally got my pentium.......the revolution started. .....and the secret was out on the street. Unlike windows media classic (was just called windows media player), you could play multiple songs from multiple folders (or CD drives if you had more than one in your tower).....on an amazing program called WINAMP (build 2.0).
This achievement was only superseded by the discovery of the the "Frounhover (GmbH sp) M-peg Layer 3 codec" which allowed users to actually rip music off a CD (using the now 8 speed CD-ROMs!!!) into a respectable size (roughly 1 meg / min @ 128kbs).........with each cd being less than 100mb, and underground society formed (usually on ICQ #mp3 forums) where people would swap music at whopping 2-30kbs.
Ah the good ol'e days....i miss my AWE32 plugged into that yamaha amp.
Isn't it funny that people thought MP3's started with the Ipod and/or Windows Media Player?
Where the fact of the matter was mp3 was the illegal underground format of ripping music, and didn't work on either windows media player, or any apple device at its time of conception.

[The Pastor]

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>ICE is an acronym that stands for a lot of things. I assume we're not talking about in-circuit emulation, or cryptography here?


Of course, being a motorbike website, obviously it stands for in car entertainment.

[avgas]

Of course, being a motorbike website, obviously it stands for in car entertainment.
What if you leave home without her?

[crashe]

my giddy aunt and yee gawds........

I have read this thread and I got lost on the second post.

I must be stuck in the dark ages...... :rofl:
Cos I ONLY have a turntable, cd player and a cassette player on my stereo.


Oh I do have a discman walkie thingeemejigs that can plug into a car radio thingee.
Or run it by batteries.

[The Lone Rider]

Where the fact of the matter was mp3 was the illegal underground format of ripping music, and didn't work on either windows media player, or any apple device at its time of conception.

Mp3 is not and has not ever been that at any point of design intention. Many musicians collaborate with others all around the world, as well as film companies needed to send audio files here and there so the ie.. editing suites can do their job while the sound man is still finishing his! Mp3 allowed for the audio files to be sent quickly all over the world, allowing people to do their part.

See http://www.artistcollaboration.com/ as an example. Composers record songs, post an Mp3 with a request for this or that added to it. Someone loads the mp3 to their gear, records the track, sends back a mixed mp3 and says "Is that what you wanted?" "Yeah it is" and then he sends what he recorded uncompressed to the original composer.



For a DSE mp3 player, it should be as following.

Convert your CDs/.wav to mp3 (i use dbPower Amp and MusicMatch Jukebox), or download some. Plug your mp3 player in via USB, it should show up as a removable disk drive. Copy mp3s to that disk drive via my computer. Done. Enjoy the music.

The amount of songs you can fit on there has to be balanced with the quality of sound you want. You can record 32kbps and listen to hiss if you want, and have 200,000 songs on there, or you can go the other extreme and have about 10 320kbps (these are exaggerations to make a point).

Mp3 players, like speaker systems, list the max they can do - not neccessarily do well. So if it can hold 120 songs - check if thats 120 songs at 128kbps and if they are stereo.

Similarly with speakers/amp systems, you see so many that are advertised as 200 watts. But read the small print and it's 200 watts PPM, which means it can do 200 watts for one second before it blows your speaker cone. Look even closer and it says it can only do 50 watts RMS, which basically is the average it can do and is the rating you should go by. Look even closer still, and you will find that its 50watts total.. and that means if its a stereo system, you really just bought yourself a 25watt speaker system.

Lesson to be learned, read the fine print, don't listen to adverts or salesmen, ask people who actually know. :Punk:

Edit--
And Apple being better then everything else is their marketing, not fact. My Dell PC shits all over my mac, and they are matched spec for spec with few differences. PCs just need a little bit more TLC at times.

[RiderInBlack]

For a DSE mp3 player, it should be as following.

Convert your CDs/.wav to mp3 (i use dbPower Amp and MusicMatch Jukebox), or download some. Plug your mp3 player in via USB, it should show up as a removable disk drive. Copy mp3s to that disk drive via my computer. Done. Enjoy the music.Windows Media Player will do this too AND I still recomend ya go to WMA files (not to be confused with WAV files, so please stop going on about them) not mp3 for ya DSE player:whocares: They are better than mp3 and ya get more songs on:Punk:. Please got ta http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/demos/audio_quality_demos.aspx?locale=409&geoid=b7&version=11.0.5721.5145&userlocale=1409 if ya don't beleave me.

[The Lone Rider]

Encoded WMA files are licensed format and using MS encoders sends information to microsoft to gather for the marketing.

WMA also sounds worse then a well encoded high quality mp3.

.wav ALSO sounds better then WMA files if it is a standard 16bit 44.1khz .wav file, as it would be uncompressed and have true clarity.

WMA is MS grasp at the portable audio format, and fizzled out like the minidisc and digital compact cassette that other companies put out, and WMA is predominately used by web authors or those who don't reach for alternatives to MS products first.

Real Media audio files suck as well.

[pete376403]

Oh for trivias sake, the reason 44.1khz 16bit was decided as the red book standard has to do with one of the people on the committee listened to bach or bethoven or something like that... and anyway he commented that this one particular song is about 80 mins long and he has to turn over his tape/record in order to hear it all. So it is decided the format needs to fit about 80mins on, and by the way CDs are made, that meant audio had to be encoded at 44.1khz 16bit. The story is something along those lines anyway..
Close....
The original target storage capacity for a CD was an hour of audio content, and a disc diameter of 115 mm was sufficient for this. However, according to Philips, Sony vice-president Norio Ohga suggested extending the capacity to 74 minutes to accommodate a complete performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony;[3] however, Kees Immink of Philips denies this.[1] The extra playing time subsequently required the change to a 120 mm disc.

According to a Sunday Tribune interview [1] the story is slightly more involved. At that time (1979) Philips owned Polygram, one of the world’s largest distributors of music. Polygram had set up a large experimental CD plant in Hanover, Germany, which could produce huge amounts of CDs having, of course, a diameter of 11.5 cm. Sony did not yet have such a facility. If Sony had agreed on the 11.5 cm disc, Philips would have had a significant competitive edge in the market. Sony was aware of that, did not like it, and something had to be done. The long-playing time of Beethoven's Ninth imposed by Ohga was used to push Philips to accept 12 cm, so that Philips’ Polygram lost its edge on disc fabrication.
http://www.answers.com/topic/compact-disc-2

[The Lone Rider]

Close....
The original target storage capacity for a CD was an hour of audio content, and a disc diameter of 115 mm was sufficient for this. However, according to Philips, Sony vice-president Norio Ohga suggested extending the capacity to 74 minutes to accommodate a complete performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony;[3] however, Kees Immink of Philips denies this.[1] The extra playing time subsequently required the change to a 120 mm disc.

According to a Sunday Tribune interview [1] the story is slightly more involved. At that time (1979) Philips owned Polygram, one of the world’s largest distributors of music. Polygram had set up a large experimental CD plant in Hanover, Germany, which could produce huge amounts of CDs having, of course, a diameter of 11.5 cm. Sony did not yet have such a facility. If Sony had agreed on the 11.5 cm disc, Philips would have had a significant competitive edge in the market. Sony was aware of that, did not like it, and something had to be done. The long-playing time of Beethoven's Ninth imposed by Ohga was used to push Philips to accept 12 cm, so that Philips’ Polygram lost its edge on disc fabrication.
http://www.answers.com/topic/compact-disc-2

Yeah, I knew it was something like that. :Punk:

Audio engineer for years, historian never :no:

[RiderInBlack]

WMA also sounds worse then a well encoded high quality mp3.:laugh:But hardly worth a red rep "WMA sucks, and is for horse shoe fitting posturing tools such as thyself. Quote Dyers" . If ya have a problem be a man and post it.:whocares:

[Street Gerbil]

Ahem ahem...
Guys, any digital recording, even in raw format, is by definition lossy. Instead of recording an analog waveform, as it once was with vynil records, you are taking samples. On a CD you sample the input waveform 44k times a second (i.e. very very often) but it still means that when you play it back, you play back an approximation rather than the original waveform (quantification loss). Secondly, your storage for each sample is not infinite. At best you can use 16bits i.e. values from 0 to 65535 to record frequencies between 20Hz to 20.000Hz. Obviously you have to introduce some approximation here as well (PCM compression loss).
I am not familiar with full specs for SACD but given its sampling rate of almost 2.5MHz (vs. 44kHz on CDDA) it is probably as close to the real deal as it gets.
Unfortunately SACD cannot be read/ripped/recorded on the PC so I am going to stick with my CD player for a while.
Sorry for being such a smartass. Just my $.02
P.S. Use EAC for ripping. It may take a whole night per disk (vs. ten minutes) but the resulting mp3s will sound soooo much better!


EDITED -----



The only thing music related at the time was remixed and looped midi files on an SB16 (if you were lucky) - because your mate upgraded his flash DX40 to play doom with actual music.

Dude, does the name Gravis Ultrasound Max ring a bell? The decision of Gravis to get out of soundcard business and leave the market to the likes of Creative is nothing short of a crime against humanity.

[The Lone Rider]

Ahem ahem...
Guys, any digital recording, even in raw format, is by definition lossy. Instead of recording an analog waveform, as it once was with vynil records, you are taking samples. On a CD you sample the input waveform 44k times a second (i.e. very very often) but it still means that when you play it back, you play back an approximation rather than the original waveform (quantification loss). Secondly, your storage for each sample is not infinite. At best you can use 16bits i.e. values from 0 to 65535 to record frequencies between 20Hz to 20.000Hz. Obviously you have to introduce some approximation here as well (PCM compression loss).
I am not familiar with full specs for SACD but given its sampling rate of almost 2.5MHz (vs. 44kHz on CDDA) it is probably as close to the real deal as it gets.
Unfortunately SACD cannot be read/ripped/recorded on the PC so I am going to stick with my CD player for a while.
Sorry for being such a smartass. Just my $.02
P.S. Use EAC for ripping. It may take a whole night per disk (vs. ten minutes) but the resulting mp3s will sound soooo much better

You forgot to mention aliasing and the Nyquist point

[Street Gerbil]

You forgot to mention aliasing and the Nyquist point
I have no idea what they are. Would you care to elaborate?

[Holy Roller]

One of the guys here at work uses FLAC format recons its the bees knees. Claims to a lossless system, sounds heaps better than Mp3 but at $600 for the player I'll live with my legend Jazz and SD cards for now. Money is better spent on the bike:innocent:

[xwhatsit]

One of the guys here at work uses FLAC format recons its the bees knees. Claims to a lossless system, sounds heaps better than Mp3 but at $600 for the player I'll live with my legend Jazz and SD cards for now. Money is better spent on the bike:innocent:

<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>FLAC is nice, I use it on the computer (for free), but convert it to MP3 for the iPod. Also bigger file sizes, but still far better than WAV for exactly the same quality (like you said, it's lossless -- at least in terms of digital audio, Street Gerbil is correct about sampling).

There's quite a few cheaper audio players these days that do FLAC. I think also the Rockbox firmware you can install on existing MP3 players (iPod and iRiver are two that support it) does FLAC as well. But even with really nice canalphones like Etymotic's ER-6 line, you still get enough outside interference and microphonics when walking around with a portable audio player that FLAC is often not worth the effort, at least in my opinion. My ears aren't that good, they've been hammered a bit from sitting just in front of the percussion section for many years :lol:

[imdying]

I have no idea what they are. Would you care to elaborate?

He's saying you're full of shit cause your ears ain't that great anyway :lol:

The format choice isn't going to make a difference to the OP, she'll have crap ear phones and be on a motorbike or walking down the street anyway :lol:

[The Lone Rider]

I have no idea what they are. Would you care to elaborate?

Well this is hard to explain without drawing charts.

But it has to do with sample rates.

lets use 44khz for simple maths sake and lets say we are using a simple sine wave

In simple terms you are getting two samples per milisecond (might be microsecond or something smaller - not sure) for a 22khz frequency tone. So you have captured the 22khz, but because its only two samples you end up with something very triangle wave looking.

So in going with that, the reason 44.1khz was chosen was because it was decided that the absolute frequency you want to record should have at least two samples. So because humans have a range, when their hearing is perfect and that generally is only in the 1st year of life, you can hear 20hz to 20khz. So 44.1khz was chosen to give a bit of lee way so that 20khz in our CDs dont sound like triangle waves. This whole thing is Nyquist - that your sample rate should be double the maximum frequency you want to record.

Most digital recording studios, including my own, record at much high sample rates. This gives you more samples in the higher ranges, making your cymbals etc sounding like fine crystal! But if your intended final medium is a CD, you need that sample rate lowered to match. For myself, I am bringing songs down from 96khz to 44.1khz.

Now, theres a lot of stuff on how the conversion works that I dont know, and probably wouldnt understand. But in the process of it all you are obviously losing information - dropping samples! Bye bye my nice sounding hi hat. This process creates something called aliasing, which creates harmonics (this is getting into psycho acoustics btw, another thing I don't understand too much of) and then makes other frequencies stand out! So suddenly your guitars might sound particularly screechy when you bring the rate down.

There is a fix, called anti-aliasing which I believe uses sub harmonic noise during the conversion to combat that effect. However I don't understand it either - my software does it automatically for me.

Different programs also anti-alias differently, so some can be considered good or bad at doing it.

---Disclaimer---
The above is my best attempt at explaining it, and also remembering facts that generally I take for granted as computer audio systems are very automated and integrated now.

Thank you very much. :Punk: