|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Micky
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:51 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:13 pm
Posts: 1625
Location: Montreal, Canada
Been Liked: 34 times
|
RLC @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:46 pm wrote: But wouldn't they just be 160 kbps mp3 files converted to wave and not true wave files in the sense - as to rerip to wave?
Ideally, you really want to extract to wave but the good thing about lame, is that it doesn't damage the file when it encoded at 160k and over, meaning, you can convert back to wave without loosing anything, well, almost  A commercial type encoder found in itune for ex. will kill it, can't concert back to wave without affecting the sound 
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Micky
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:54 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:13 pm
Posts: 1625
Location: Montreal, Canada
Been Liked: 34 times
|
mckyj57 @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:45 pm wrote: Micky @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:03 pm wrote: RLC @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:59 pm wrote: If file size was no concern (and at todays cheap prices for hard drives it shouldn't be) I would go with *.wav and *.cdg. I agree, you can't get a better sound than Wave and if you really want the best possible sound, extract in a FAT32 drive, but make sure to use a good software for your extraction, some impacts the sounds Can you explain this statement? A file is a file is a file. The format of the file system should make no difference at all. A bit is a bit. Sorry, I really don't want to get in this debade again, about stats are stats, data file is a data file... and therefore they shouldn't be any difference, it's not that simple 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mckyj57
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:08 am |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5576
Location: Cocoa Beach
Been Liked: 122 times
|
Micky @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:54 pm wrote: mckyj57 @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:45 pm wrote: Micky @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:03 pm wrote: RLC @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:59 pm wrote: If file size was no concern (and at todays cheap prices for hard drives it shouldn't be) I would go with *.wav and *.cdg. I agree, you can't get a better sound than Wave and if you really want the best possible sound, extract in a FAT32 drive, but make sure to use a good software for your extraction, some impacts the sounds Can you explain this statement? A file is a file is a file. The format of the file system should make no difference at all. A bit is a bit. Sorry, I really don't want to get in this debade again, about stats are stats, data file is a data file... and therefore they shouldn't be any difference, it's not that simple It is that simple. If the same bits are in the file, there is no way sound quality can change. If you are suggesting there is some sort of black magic going on here, fine -- I will adjust my opinion of what you post accordingly.
The encoder produces a stream of bits which are saved in a file. If the bits are the same, the sound is the same.
There is simply no difference.
_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ctohelpsu
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:42 am |
|
 |
| Novice Poster |
 |
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:54 pm
Posts: 37
Been Liked: 0 time
|
|
P.S...Windows xp NTFS...external HD formated in NTFS...Personaly I don't do anything in fat32 or fat at all...Unless it is a requirement, then I find another solution as to not have to use FAT...It has been our experience in the store (computer Store) that Bits...and or files can become corupt in any format NTFS is more secure and stable in a particular environment. Just my 2 cents...thanks again!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Micky
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:53 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:13 pm
Posts: 1625
Location: Montreal, Canada
Been Liked: 34 times
|
ctohelpsu @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:42 pm wrote: P.S...Windows xp NTFS...external HD formated in NTFS...Personaly I don't do anything in fat32 or fat at all...Unless it is a requirement, then I find another solution as to not have to use FAT...It has been our experience in the store (computer Store) that Bits...and or files can become corupt in any format NTFS is more secure and stable in a particular environment. Just my 2 cents...thanks again!
And you are correct, NTFS is also more secure  FAT32 is mostly used in a multitrack studio setup on an external or seperate drive to store the 24 bit/192k files. In your case, NTFS is in fact the good choice
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Micky
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:18 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:13 pm
Posts: 1625
Location: Montreal, Canada
Been Liked: 34 times
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ericlater
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it's so easy to forget what you know.
During this discussion of the creating process in ripping a disc, since I had ripped one lately, I forgot altogether that I have burnt discs that will work perfectly in one device (player) and not at all in another.
So, the player itself could be a factor in determining what we believe is working and what isn't in terms of performing a rip!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 561 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
