Page 3 of 3

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:45 pm
by Gud
ZoliveR wrote: MP3 is an universal format and so don't have constraints


Actually, MP3 is patented(AFAIK).

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 pm
by Darth Wong
I thought it was only the Fraunhofer MP3 codec that was patented, not the format itself.

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:49 pm
by ThE-UnknowN
I prefer MP3 cos it's a more open format in the sense that almost all digital music players / music software support it - in just about any OS you want to use it under.

Of cos, the fact that there is no DRM on it is even better. I usually rip my staff at 192kbps or higher - if I use 320, usually I set it as VBR.

Works fine for me.
8)

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:11 pm
by Darth Wong
I use LAME with VBR and quality set to max.

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:05 pm
by romans1423
I can tell a difference between MP3s encoded by MusicMatch at 128 and 320, though I've never tried any intermediates. I switched to 320 once I bought a license and could set the encoding higher (and a larger hard drive prompted me a bit as well). Now its more of a, "Gotta have the best" kinda thing, if anything.

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:38 pm
by Kakulin
Weird...
I use the free version of musicmatch and it allows me to rip my CDs to 320 kbps

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:13 pm
by ptlis
mp3 or wma? Go for ogg, my good man. And do yourself a favour (i'm assuming if we're talking about wma you're on a win32 OS) and use CDex, it's not been updated for some time but is still the best win32 encoder around for oog and mp3 (as well as other formats).

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:11 pm
by romans1423
Kakulin wrote: Weird...
I use the free version of musicmatch and it allows me to rip my CDs to 320 kbps


Newer versions allow that... If I remember correctly a couple of versions ago, MP3s could only be at 128kbps using an unlicensced MusicMatch to rip.

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:04 pm
by Anon
I use MP3 mostly. I've also got AAC files that I can't bloody play, and a few .wav files. But I honestly can't hear the diff between .mp3 and .wma files (Mostly attributed to using craptacular $20 speakers @_@), so as long as it plays, I'm happy :)

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:28 pm
by starfoxtj
MP3 all the way!

No stupid DRM. :P

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:28 pm
by MHobbit
For the sake of this topic title, I prefer to use WMA, but a good fraction (about one-third) of my music is in MP3.

Overall, I use WAV (yep, ripped straight from the CD unencoded), WMA, FLAC (awesome one, free and open-source), and MP3. I don't have iTunes, so I don't use AAC (AFAIK, iTunes uses AAC, right?).
mp3 or wma? Go for ogg, my good man. And do yourself a favour (i'm assuming if we're talking about wma you're on a win32 OS) and use CDex, it's not been updated for some time but is still the best win32 encoder around for oog and mp3 (as well as other formats).


I don't like OGG, because it's lossy. FLAC and WMA are lossless, so naturally I prefer them.

I've tried CDex and IMHO it's not that great. I use Exact Audio Copy and the built-in ripper with MusicMatch JukeBox 8 to rip music.

I'm also starting to rip some music from some of our records. Good thing our SoundBlaster 24-bit Advanced HD has a line-in port! 8) Good for preserving Eagles music.
Of cos, the fact that there is no DRM on it is even better. I usually rip my staff at 192kbps or higher - if I use 320, usually I set it as VBR.


That's because DRM is for when you download music.

[EDIT] I got an iPod yesterday, so I'm using Apple Lossless.