Originally posted by Tone
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Apple iPod vs Sony Network Walkman
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by SarienI dunno, try not using a garbage format for your media, maybe.
192 Kbps Mp3: http://www.linplug5.com/mp/BeamUp_A2_aiplague.mp3
now here is a clip of the same file compacted down to 82Kbps:
http://s52.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0...20QHPDBFPXIVSQ
WMA is very useful for low bit rates. this 82 sounds like what a lame 128 wouldLast edited by Tone; 11-19-2005, 10:52 PM.
Comment
-
And allow me to tell you. If you tune your mp3 encodings you can get the exact same performance out of mp3 files. With Apple lossless you can get the same or better up to lossless encoding out of AAC and m4a files.
What is the difference then? That's easy. There's one real difference between the lot.
DRM. Digital Rights Management. Tone, you're bullshitting yourself if you think it's about audio quality. MP3 and AAC can both do variable bitrate encoding. They can both pull the same performance quality you're getting from your windows media audio.
Windows Media is chock full of DRM. It was a very early, if not their first concern, "is this legally owned". Scripts can be added easily to windows media (audio and video) that can do things like open web browser windows. Can check to see if you have a legal license to play said media, etc.
AAC is an open industry standard, developed by Dolby Labs and AT&T. Apple added Fairplay protection on top of that, for the iTunes Music store, but that really is neither here nor there, because Fairplay isn't part of AAC itself, and can be removed by burning to an uncompressed CD, then re-ripping it with the lossless AAC encoder. And the only place you can get Fairplay protected files is from the samesaid iTunes music store.
MP3 doesn't support DRM. That's why it's not being used as a mode to sell music.
WMA, AAC, MP3 isn't about quality. It's about who can tell you what to do with your music.
People can bitch and moan about the iPod and say how it doesn't support WMA all they want. Fact is, it doesn't need to support it. It's been doing just fine without it, hasn't it? It has easily equal if not better quality to wma encoding, and best of all, there's a whole lot less people telling you just exactly what you can do with your music.
Best of all in my opinion? By not choosing WMA, you're not technologically binding yourself to Microsoft. Doing that has been in my experience like going for a swim with an anchor around your neck."Sexy" Steve Mijalis-Gilster, IVX
Reinstate Me.
Comment
-
That, and that you can convert WMA's to MP3s seamlessly with iTunes.
MUTHAFUKAZ
Originally posted by Infected_I've listened to iPods, they look good but the sound quality is horrible without an equaliser.
BULLSHITZ
Never used the sony MP3 players, but I use other products from them. I'd give it a try. Sony is reliable.
-Sam
WHAT THE FUCK.Last edited by DoTheFandango; 11-20-2005, 12:49 AM.Originally posted by Jeenyusssometimes i thrust my hips so my flaccid dick slaps my stomach, then my taint, then my stomach, then my taint. i like the sound.
Comment
-
This whole deal is nonsensical. Encode to alt-preset-standard LAME mp3 (VBR 192kbps), and you have something which is indistinguishable from lossless for 99% of situations. Encode in lossless and you have the exact same thing as on the CD (it is mathematically impossible to get higher quality from a encode).- k2
Comment
-
Originally posted by K2GreyThis whole deal is nonsensical. Encode to alt-preset-standard LAME mp3 (VBR 192kbps), and you have something which is indistinguishable from lossless for 99% of situations. Encode in lossless and you have the exact same thing as on the CD (it is mathematically impossible to get higher quality from a encode).
Comment
Channels
Collapse
Comment