Pooh Bear wrote:
Stimpy wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

iTunes. http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Works well, easy to use,
and
has a good MP3/AAC/lossless encoding engine.

What do yoiu mean by a *lossless* 'encoder' ???

An encoder that doesn't irreversably corrupt the input signal as
part of the encoding process.

If you go WAV - MP3 - WAV, the final WAV is different from the
initial WAV.

If, OTOH, you go WAV - FLAC - WAV, the two WAV's are identical

MP3 is a lossy format,

That bit, I'm familiar with.

FLAC is a lossless format

No bit rate reduction ? I haven't come across FLAC yet.

Check it out; along with APE it's definitely *the* format for compressing
raw'WAVs. Sharing The Groove et al won't allow any lossy files to be
traded, everything is FLAC or APE (often further compressed into SHN)

newman wrote:

I'm on Win98me

You sure about that ?

Graham

Stimpy wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Stimpy wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

iTunes. http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Works well, easy to use,
and
has a good MP3/AAC/lossless encoding engine.

What do yoiu mean by a *lossless* 'encoder' ???

An encoder that doesn't irreversably corrupt the input signal as
part of the encoding process.

If you go WAV - MP3 - WAV, the final WAV is different from the
initial WAV.

If, OTOH, you go WAV - FLAC - WAV, the two WAV's are identical

MP3 is a lossy format,

That bit, I'm familiar with.

FLAC is a lossless format

No bit rate reduction ? I haven't come across FLAC yet.

Check it out; along with APE it's definitely *the* format for compressing
raw'WAVs. Sharing The Groove et al won't allow any lossy files to be
traded, everything is FLAC or APE (often further compressed into SHN)

Ok, I've looked into lossless encoding now and the saving on file size seems
to be typically around 50%.

With the rapid yearly if not monthly increase in disk capacity - surely this
will just be a 'flash in the pan' ?

Same might go for mp3 etc before long.

Probably good thing too as far as mp3 is concerned.

Just need faster broadband too for those downloads !

Graahm

Pooh Bear wrote:

Ok, I've looked into lossless encoding now and the saving on file
size seems to be typically around 50%.

With the rapid yearly if not monthly increase in disk capacity -
surely this will just be a 'flash in the pan' ?

Yup... Most serious collectors now only want WAVs. FLAC/APE/SHN are
generally just used for file transfer

With the rapid yearly if not monthly increase in disk capacity - surely this
will just be a 'flash in the pan' ?

Net bandwidth is NOT increasing so quickly.

Might be good to compress for transmission and then store and
use uncompressed.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:38:05 GMT
"Fleetie" wrote:

Net bandwidth is NOT increasing so quickly.

Might be good to compress for transmission and then store and
use uncompressed.

why on earth would you want to store the stuff uncompressed. Its not
like wine, it wont cork from being stored too long...

Ian Molton wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:38:05 GMT
"Fleetie" wrote:

Net bandwidth is NOT increasing so quickly.

Might be good to compress for transmission and then store and
use uncompressed.

why on earth would you want to store the stuff uncompressed. Its not
like wine, it wont cork from being stored too long...

Is there a decent player that will uncompress APE/FLAC on the fly?