4 ms·
If this turns out to be all 128k mp3s, I am going to be thoroughly irked. ...and then proceed to grab the lot anyway, of course.
by eponeponepon 13y ago
If this turns out to be all 128k mp3s, I am going to be thoroughly irked.
...and then proceed to grab the lot anyway, of course.
- codelap 13y agoI'm sure you didn't mean it to sound entitled, but it's free music. Disappointed in 128k is fine, as you can't get the sound quality that would meet your requirement to be in your library. But it shouldn't annoy you.
- delluminatus 13y agoWhy not?
- eponeponepon 13y agoNah, it doesn't actually annoy me - forgive my hyperbole. It would be more exciting to have lovely clean flacs than to have dirty mp3s, though. :)
- at-fates-hands 13y agoAnd then you can download Audacity and covert them to 320K or FLAC and be happy.
- eponeponepon 13y agoUmm. Not totally sure if you're making a joke or missing the point - there's no point making a lossless file from a lossy source, and even less point making a higher-bitrate lossy version...
- chadwickthebold 13y agoCan you actually do that? Up-convert from a lossy source so that the file reads that it's 320kbps or whatever, but sounds like its coming out of an old telephone?
- eponeponepon 13y agoOf course :) A single generation from 128 to 320 wouldn't be too terrible, mind - it'd probably be noticeable to most people on half-decent speakers, but it wouldn't totally wreck the music. A second generation from that lossy-sourced 320 would probably start to get pretty grating, though. If you're thinking of doing it for artistic reasons, though, I'd say you're more likely to get better results from a judicious selection of high- and low-pass filters, with a flanger or two thrown in.
- fuzzywalrus 13y agoJust to expand on what eponeponepon said, digital generation loss (by transcoding/compression) sounds quite a bit different than analog generation loss.