Comments on: MP3s, Classical Music, Quality http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/ A beginners guide to classical music, by someone who switched at 23 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:03:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ben http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-748 Ben Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:41:05 +0000 http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/#comment-748 ACD: That's good! I must be misunderstanding what you mean. I blame physics for destroying my language comprehension abilities. Jon: You're right, It definitely comes down to how much one can tolerate in the end, I think for the average user 192Kbps is better than tolerable (although if there were ten times as much space on my devices I'd be storing everything as lossless...) Andy: Where you change the settings varies upon the program that you use to rip CDs with, but it's always done within the program. Looking for a menu item called Preferences or Settings would probably lead you to the right place. ACD:
That’s good! I must be misunderstanding what you mean. I blame physics for destroying my language comprehension abilities.

Jon:
You’re right, It definitely comes down to how much one can tolerate in the end, I think for the average user 192Kbps is better than tolerable (although if there were ten times as much space on my devices I’d be storing everything as lossless…)

Andy:
Where you change the settings varies upon the program that you use to rip CDs with, but it’s always done within the program. Looking for a menu item called Preferences or Settings would probably lead you to the right place.

]]> By: JonJ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-745 JonJ Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:16:44 +0000 http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/#comment-745 iTunes gives you plenty of choices, including lossless (which is what you want for CDs, unless you are pressed for hard disk space). iTunes gives you plenty of choices, including lossless (which is what you want for CDs, unless you are pressed for hard disk space).

]]> By: Andy http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-742 Andy Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:07:05 +0000 http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/#comment-742 You wrote that you have your MP3s "at 192Kbps" How do I change that on mine? I use the software that it came with, and I don't know what rate it uses when it rips files from my CDs. Is there a program I can download that lets me adjust the quality of the MP3? Thanks, Andy You wrote that you have your MP3s “at 192Kbps” How do I change that on mine? I use the software that it came with, and I don’t know what rate it uses when it rips files from my CDs. Is there a program I can download that lets me adjust the quality of the MP3?

Thanks,
Andy

]]> By: JonJ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-734 JonJ Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:19:12 +0000 http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/#comment-734 When most people use the term "mp3," they don't realize that there are quite a few "mp3"s. I don't recall at the moment how many are in general use, but "mp3" is just a term for a certain method of encoding digital sound; it can be done at various levels of "lossiness." The problem, of course, is that the less "losing" that takes place, the more bits the resulting file takes, and the smaller is the number of pieces that can be put on a hard disk or flash memory of a given size. As you say, FLAC is a lossless coding system, and there are a number of others that are more often used on Apple equipment. They are as good as a CD (and of course there is the old argument between CD and LP, digital vs. analog, proponents), but take up a lot more space. As to what is a "good" or "bad" digitization of music, it's really a matter of individual taste. Whatever a particular individual likes is what is best for that individual. The thing to remember is that no method of recording, digital or analog, is as good as being at a live performance, just as no photograph is as good as being at the actual scene. When most people use the term “mp3,” they don’t realize that there are quite a few “mp3″s. I don’t recall at the moment how many are in general use, but “mp3″ is just a term for a certain method of encoding digital sound; it can be done at various levels of “lossiness.” The problem, of course, is that the less “losing” that takes place, the more bits the resulting file takes, and the smaller is the number of pieces that can be put on a hard disk or flash memory of a given size.

As you say, FLAC is a lossless coding system, and there are a number of others that are more often used on Apple equipment. They are as good as a CD (and of course there is the old argument between CD and LP, digital vs. analog, proponents), but take up a lot more space.

As to what is a “good” or “bad” digitization of music, it’s really a matter of individual taste. Whatever a particular individual likes is what is best for that individual. The thing to remember is that no method of recording, digital or analog, is as good as being at a live performance, just as no photograph is as good as being at the actual scene.

]]> By: A.C. Douglas http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-733 A.C. Douglas Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:05:22 +0000 http://classicalconvert.com/2007/08/mp3s-classical-music-quality/#comment-733 You wrote: "What I genuinely do not understand the animosity toward bloggers who put up their current playlists." No such animosity from me. None whatsoever. You need to read more carefully. ACD You wrote: “What I genuinely do not understand the animosity toward bloggers who put up their current playlists.”

No such animosity from me.

None whatsoever.

You need to read more carefully.

ACD

]]>