CD's Do buy them ??

[Larrydehp920r]

First of all guys, when you burn an mp3 onto a cd in the cd audio format it automatically converts the bitrate to the same bitrate as a storebought cd.....I don't have an mp3 player other than my computer....therefore whatever I burn its in cd audio and we all know that the bitrate for cd audio is 1411 kbps. I use mp3s as a way of ripping off the record companies who have ripped me and all of you off since the dawn of cds. I download and keep in my "musicmatch" jukebox until I want to burn it onto a disc. Right now I'm hoping Pioneer will make a changer with mp3 capability. And as for recording cd to cd on a stereo model.....I haven't seen one of them yet that will print a playlist or cover art. Not only that you have to get your hands on a particular cd to be able to copy it......with mp3's you just hop online and get it one track at a time.

Later

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[Larrydehp920r]

However....there are a few artists whose cds I will buy but thats only because they are my favorites and its worth having the liner notes and the case.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[ntascrname 10+ year member]

Well... the problem with even 320 is that rippers and burners are NOT perfect. Something is always lost in the process. Also, CD's made at home are much more likely to have physical defects (eg the burner was jostled while burning) than a CD made with something like microsoft's CD STAMPER (a few seconds). Of course, as you move up the line with equipment the difference is less noticeable. Still... it's rare to find a burned CD that sounds quite as fine as one from the factory ;-)

 

[zane 10+ year member]

Originally posted by ntascrname Well... the problem with even 320 is that rippers and burners are NOT perfect. Something is always lost in the process. Also, CD's made at home are much more likely to have physical defects (eg the burner was jostled while burning) than a CD made with something like microsoft's CD STAMPER (a few seconds). Of course, as you move up the line with equipment the difference is less noticeable. Still... it's rare to find a burned CD that sounds quite as fine as one from the factory ;-)

Granted- while hardware is not perfect and some can pick up interference; the same would apply to the burners the record labels use.

Aside from that fact- I performed a side by side comparison of the new Goo Goo Dolls Disc, Gutterflower, tonight. I purchased the actual disc and also downloaded the entire disc at 320 bitrate from WinMx. Basically, this was not a blind test. First the track from the purchased disc was played- then the same track from the burned disc was played. These were back to back comparrisons. Both My friend and I could not discern any audible difference between either disc.

We tried this comparrison in my car- which has a fairly respectable SQ system; and also on my home theater. The results were the same. Niether disc was lacking in either area. Despite my personal views, all of my testing is completely un-biased.

One other area of interest- Total used disk space on the purchased disc was 392 MB. Total used disc space on the burned copy was also 392MB. The CD information was also obtained by my burning software- making the burned disc essentially the same as the purchased one. I believe the point was made before about a blind test between a purchased and a burned CD. I am in the Cedar Rapids Iowa area, I would also be happy to administer this test to anyone who claims they can hear a difference.

take it easy,

-zane

 

[MxRacerCam 10+ year member]

zane...

i downloaded winmx tonight, and i have to say i like it! i've been using audiogalaxy (which is nice, but becoming harder to find some higher bitrate stuff). anyway, i'm downloading a couple of jeff buckley songs tonight at the 320 bitrate, so i can do some back to back comparisons. thanks for the info! i shall see (hear?) for myself!!

 

[zane 10+ year member]

Originally posted by MxRacerCam zane...

 

i downloaded winmx tonight, and i have to say i like it! i've been using audiogalaxy (which is nice, but becoming harder to find some higher bitrate stuff). anyway, i'm downloading a couple of jeff buckley songs tonight at the 320 bitrate, so i can do some back to back comparisons. thanks for the info! i shall see (hear?) for myself!!

Its certainly a lot more user friendly. I simply detest Audiogalaxy. I find no use for it or even a remote competition with the other file sharing programs available.

No centralized servers are also a big advantage!

take it easy,

-zane

 

[mr_unreal 10+ year member]

The is no difference in sound quality (that i noticed anyway) if you burn cds use firstly blank cds with the little 'Digital Audio' writing below 'Compact Disc Recordable' and second use a program called 'Clone CD' and choose to 'extract Sub Channel Audio' it should be then as close to a 1:1 copy of the original, with extremely little if no diffence.

That my opinion anyway

 

[ReversdPolarity 10+ year member]

i wouldnt use kazaa cuz its slow and plus it only lets u d/l at 128kbps or lower..

for a search engine i use winmx and its great

but 90% of the tie i got to dalnet or telstra servers in a chat room that has mp3

fileserving... faster and no netlag that way..

320 kbps is cd quality but u can search for songs at 1410 kbps which is the speed at which a cd contains/plays them and download at that bitrate... however it is .wav format and will take about 10times the space on ur harddrive than a norm cd...

i dont buy cds.. what a joke... and i suppose its a good thing that my ears cant tell the diff between 1410 kbps off the computer and 1410 kbps at 16$ from a store

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[MxRacerCam 10+ year member]

ok zane....

the results are in... and the winnah is.... neither!! lol. so i did the back to back comparison with three jeff buckley songs, and found no difference between the downloaded 320 bitrate mp3 and the store bought cd. pretty nifty. although i noticed that the store bought cd played louder at the same volume setting. odd, but not no effect on the quality of the playback. the only problem is, it's still kinda hard to find some 320 stuff, but hey, who am i to complain? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif now i have one last question. if i copy cd to cd on my computer, does the bitrate and quality remain the same?

 

[ReversdPolarity 10+ year member]

cd plays at 1410 kbps and when u copy it to ur cpu it remains the same... and all songs put onto a cd to be played (as an audio file ie .wav) are/must be converted to 1410kbps.... make a cd of downloaded mp3s at various bitrates then take the cd and copy it to your comp and check the bitrate... it will be 1410 kbps

henceforth and normal cd u put onto your comp will be at such bitrate and remain as such unless u change to bitrate to copressed format (mp3).

songs in .wav or 1410 bitrate take about 70mb of space where as the same file in mp3 format takes about 7mb of space... hint = dont store songs on ur comp as wav files unless u have mass memory and a few external harddrives as storage

 

[MxRacerCam 10+ year member]

so something that is downloaded at a lower bitrate (i.e. 128 or whatever) gets converted to 1410? explain to me how the computer can take an mp3 encoded at a lower rate, and then make it higher? it only has so much information to work with, correct? where does the extra information come from exactly???