Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 345 |
| Author | ||
oliverstoned 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
 Posted: April 26 2006 at 07:13 |
|
|
..except that you deny the jitter issue which affects transports, evoked in the text i posted up.
|
||
 |
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21194 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 07:18 |
|
It doesn't apply in the case of audio extraction, because computers have very large buffers. Driver units are legacy systems from times where large buffers (even 2MB) were not affordable even at these prices ... so it was crucial for these systems to not have any errors while reading the data which would cause the unit to have to go back and read the data again ... which leads to pauses in the playback if the buffer length is exceeded. Computers have all the time in the world to read the CD ... read the excerpt that I quoted on the previous page. The software reads a sector up to 82 times, and only if the different extractions are identical it accepts the result. There is no interpolation or "guessing" in case of data which has been not been read correctly due to jitter, scratches or whatever else that may happen. |
||
|
||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:07 |
|
In your opinion?  Edited by oliverstoned - April 26 2006 at 08:08 |
||
|
||
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:10 |
|
Actually you are both wasting your time, this argument hasn't progressed from previous threads.
 In my opinion.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21194 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 08:11 |
|
|
I'm not bored at all ... these things cannot be explained too often.
|
||
|
||
|
Meddler
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: September 29 2005 Location: Massillon Status: Offline Points: 881 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 11:00 |
|
|
[Random question]
Would I be wasting my time downloading musuc over the internet? Because, its just 128kps. It doesn't sound bad to me. (legally  [iTunes.. etc]) Or would my money be better spent buying CDs?Edited by Meddler - April 26 2006 at 11:01 |
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21194 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 11:17 |
|
Two things: - Today music you buy in internet stores is encoded in 192kbps. It's also not encoded as mp3, but WMA with DRM (digital rights management), which puts severe limitations on what you can do with the files. - Personally I would never buy music in this form, unless the price would be considerably lower than the real album. There are a few websites which offer mp3s in an acceptable form, most importantly www.emusic.com, where you can buy whole albums for around $2. That is a price well spent IMO, because you can always decide to get the real album later or to be content with the mp3. My personal recommendation: Look for subscription based services such as Napster, where you can listen to all they have for the price of one real album per month. Together with services like eMusic and a few albums per month which you still buy "normally", that is the perfect solution to me: - you have huge quantities of stuff to listen to in low quality - you don't pay much for that, so you have enough money left to buy those albums which you REALLY like after extensive listening. |
||
|
||
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 15:27 |
|
|
Mike, I think Itunes does use 128kbps still (!), according to
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/Audio/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=49339
anyway. Mind you, there are so many horrible innaccuracies in that
article that it's quite possibly wrong...
oliver: EAC doesn't simply claim to make exact copies, it makes verifiably exact copies. That is the nature of digital audio. Jitter is, as Mike says, not relevant to this situation. |
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21194 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 15:31 |
|
|
^ goose, you may be correct about iTunes. But I'm talking about sane download stores.
Seriously: 192kbps are becoming the standard for downloads, Napster and most other European stores use that format (although some old tracks still exist in the Napster database which were ripped in 128kbps and haven't yet been replaced).
BTW: At this point I have to recommend www.emusic.com again - they offer tremendously well ripped mp3s at varying bitrates (VBR) which average at 200 kbps.
|
||
|
||
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: April 26 2006 at 20:29 |
|
|
For sure, but those buying Ipods have already locked themselves out of
(edit: most) sane music stores, as well as most music players and most formats of
music, bless them.
Looking at emusic though, that does look pretty good. Not that I want to buy audio files, but if I did I'd probably look there first  Edited by goose - April 26 2006 at 20:31 |
||
|
||
|
Meddler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005 Location: Massillon Status: Offline Points: 881 |
Posted: April 27 2006 at 09:30 |
|
|
Thanks Mike and Goose. I did read your reply sooner. I was just too lazy to post.
|
||
|
||
|
Sloth
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 105 |
Posted: April 27 2006 at 14:20 |
|
|
I feel that you can enjoy music with any kind of equipment you might
prefer to use. This leaves me in the middle. However, i
believe that Analog is much better than digital in terms of actual
sound. With analog you get that deep, rich bass sound and soft
highs. But with digital you get flat bass and harsh highs.
Both are good in the mid-range. Even my fiance' can tell the
difference and she doesn't take music very seriously, to her
music is music. But i think anyone can get by just fine with a
decent system, whether i is digital or analog. I could see
spending upwards of $2,000 at the very most for a quality sound system;
amp, surround sound, cd, dvda, record player, seperate EQ. but to
spend more than that is absurd and a waste money.
|
||
|
BUH!!! It's what the Buffalo say!
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 345 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The ultimate audiophile poll
Topic Options
oliverstoned wrote: