nice catch 22 album jarby
also I was surprised to see AJJ on the list too
I don't know. I have a lot of songs that don't even have a bitrate.Jarby wrote:
Is that how Winamp categorizes MIDI or something?
x2ampzz wrote:
Nothing under 320kbps for .mp3 files and the rest is .flac or .wav lossless music.
Quality whore signing off.
Why use .wav, when you have .flac? õ_oKitsunemimi wrote:
You know, uncompressed stereo .wavs @ 44100 Hz can only be 1411 kbps.
.wav has much greater universal support for one. Of course, this is irrelevant if you're just listening to songs on one device. Also, Kitsune, you're silly because ALAC isn't wav.Valentiino wrote:
Why use .wav, when you have .flac? õ_oKitsunemimi wrote:
You know, uncompressed stereo .wavs @ 44100 Hz can only be 1411 kbps.
Yeah, I kinda know that, but I was kinda trying to say that anything bigger and fatter than .wav seems pretty pointless unless you have like the best sound card + sound system ever.Jarby wrote:
.wav has much greater universal support for one. Of course, this is irrelevant if you're just listening to songs on one device. Also, Kitsune, you're silly because ALAC isn't wav.
Considering how the audible frequency range of human ears is compatible with that of a CD, I doubt anything listened to of a technically higher quality would be perceivable. I'm no expert though.Kitsunemimi wrote:
Yeah, I kinda know that, but I was kinda trying to say that anything bigger and fatter than .wav seems pretty pointless unless you have like the best sound card + sound system ever.Jarby wrote:
.wav has much greater universal support for one. Of course, this is irrelevant if you're just listening to songs on one device. Also, Kitsune, you're silly because ALAC isn't wav.
.... Of course I wouldn't actually know what it's like because I definitely don't have those... but like... you know >_>
No, no, CD audio (and lossless rips of such) is designed to fit into the range of human hearing. Mind you, I've never participated in a blind test with lossy and lossless files so I can only speak of this in theory. I'm sure you could find some results online. Also, this is completely relevant to bitrate awareness.Kitsunemimi wrote:
Hooray for redundant, extra data that is essentially inaudible to the human ear, despite being available in widely distributed music that people are proud of having take up their disk space!
.............Now what was this thread about again? :3
D33d wrote:
The top ones are the result of notating the base pairs of the DNA of different viruses, with a 'D' being used for 'U'. As for that Michael Jackson stuff, that was my brother being an assclown with his own music collection. Having said that, I ripped the same music in 128kbps, so I'm going to have a lot of re-encoding to do.
DEEDIT: Agreed with Jarby about Shiirn. You're a BAT now; act like it.