burning songs longer then 80minS

[WaaZzuupp]

hey guys i have a 120min live set and want to burn onto a cd~.... one of my friend said that u can compress the song somehow and burn it~... u guys ever come accross any program taht does that???

thank you~

 

[Mavrick007]

You could make it into one big mp3 file

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Mavrick007
You could make it into one big mp3 file

Exactly -- the sound quality will be very good if you use anything except Windows Media Player and select the "320 kbps" encoding (which is less than 1/3 the space of uncompressed music).

Of course you need to listen to it on a PC or a CD player than has MP3 playback.

(ed) the main AT website has a Frequently Asked Questions section that includes MP3 info

 

[Mavrick007]

I'm sure that with some sound editors you can chop it up into smaller files, but then you would have to put it on multiple cds if you want to play it anyplace except a pc..
but you could always find a car player that plays mp3's too, that's an option.

 

[Confused]

If you want to play it on a standard CD player, there would be no way to get more than 80 mins to a CD, so it would have to be split up.

If you don't mind playing it on a computer, or if you have a CD player or in-car deck that plays MP3s, then you can convert it to MP3. Check the FAQ link given above


Confused

 

[VicodiN]

Whats the problem with splitting into 2 discs?

 

[WaaZzuupp]

yea anpother possible way is to burn it into 2 cds..... but i have some songs set that are like 100 min.. and dont nwna waste another cd for juz 40 min.....

but anyway thanks guys...

 

[dakels]

You cannot compress it to play on a normal audio CD player as they only read 44.1khz, 16 bits, stereo. If you lessen the sampling down to 32khz or something, then your audio CD player unless it reads special formats like MP3 audio won't read the CD.

as stated already, either get a CD player that reads MP3 or other formats or make 2 CD's. And as far as "wasting" a CD. Look at the hot deals forum. You can often get CD-R's for free after rebate or $10-20 for 50-100 pack.

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Mavrick007
You could make it into one big mp3 file

Exactly -- the sound quality will be very good if you use anything except Windows Media Player and select the "320 kbps" encoding (which is less than 1/3 the space of uncompressed music).

Of course you need to listen to it on a PC or a CD player than has MP3 playback.

(ed) the main AT website has a Frequently Asked Questions section that includes MP3 info

320kpbs is overkill for almost all normal CD playing. 128kpbs is largely considered CD or near CD quality. 160kpbs is a good number if you want to be sure not to lose any quality at all. It also matters what sound system you are playing this on. The percievable difference between 160kpbs to 320kpbs on most systems is unoticeable to most people and if they do notice, its extremely slight. The difference in size however is huge. You could fit alot more songs onto a CD in 160kbps rather then 320.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: dakels
320kpbs is overkill for almost all normal CD playing.

But that doesn't matter, if there is still plenty of space on the disc for it.

128kpbs is largely considered CD or near CD quality.

By who? 128k is largely considered to sound like crap to alot of people.

160kpbs is a good number if you want to be sure not to lose any quality at all.

AFAIK, 256 is the lowest CBR bitrate to be "transparent" to the human ear. With vbr you can probably go to about a 192k average or so, it depends on the music though. 160k CBR definitely isn't "transparent".

 

[Doh!]

CDs cost less than 5 cents each when bought at the right place/time. Just make two cd's.

 

[Lonyo]

You could manage about 99 mins if you buy a 99 min CD, but that's about the max. Might be able to get it up to 105 mins or so with possible overburn.

Not all CD players read 99 min CD's though.

I'd say you won't get mor ethan 105 or so with any CD that might work in a normal CD player.

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: dakels
320kpbs is overkill for almost all normal CD playing.

But that doesn't matter, if there is still plenty of space on the disc for it.

128kpbs is largely considered CD or near CD quality.

By who? 128k is largely considered to sound like crap to alot of people.

160kpbs is a good number if you want to be sure not to lose any quality at all.

AFAIK, 256 is the lowest CBR bitrate to be "transparent" to the human ear. With vbr you can probably go to about a 192k average or so, it depends on the music though. 160k CBR definitely isn't "transparent".

What people think that sounds like crap? The audiophiles who constitute 1-2% of the music listening population? Search google about MP3 bitrates guides and see what they think is CD quality or near CD quality. Of course it's up to the person's ear, what they are listening to and how it was recorded and what they are playing it on, VBR settings, and conversion software, etc etc, but like I said, I think 128-160 is fine for the average person on average stereo/speaker setup.

Now if I grab my Grado's to listen to a well recorded symphony on MP3's, yes I personally would probably want 192+ bit rates, otherwise, I think it's just less music squeezed onto my mp3 player. Even for CD, of course size won't matter for his 120 minute project, but when I make MP3 compilation CD's for people that can hold (not exact numbers) 100 songs at 160kbps or I can do 50 songs at 320kbps that they can't really discern. Which do you think the majority will go for?

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: dakels

160kpbs is a good number if you want to be sure not to lose any quality at all.

AFAIK, 256 is the lowest CBR bitrate to be "transparent" to the human ear. With vbr you can probably go to about a 192k average or so, it depends on the music though. 160k CBR definitely isn't "transparent".

p.s. I should have included "160kpbs is a good number if you want to be sure not to lose any noticeable quality at all."
nad yes of course that bit rate loses quality, they all do, thats why it's calle a "lossy' compression. Just like a JPEG image. But if you put a 300dpi max quality JPEG on a screen then show someone a TIFF of the same image and resolution, you're going to tell me that most people will can tell the difference, especially when viewed on a monitor?

btw BingBongWongFooey I hope I'm not coming off pi$$y or anything. I'm not trying to start an inflammatory debate.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I never disagreed that 128 is good for average equipement/ears/whatever, I disagreed with specific statements you made, which you are now sort of squirming away from. You specifically said that 128k is cd quality. I can tell a 128k mp3 on fairly mediocre (although not total trash) equipment, and I have crappy ears (they've been blasted to death a bit too much).

You also said that 160k is "not losing any quality", and even if you add "noticeable" to it, it's still not accurate, 160k is not transparent to alot of people. In my car I can tell when I'm listening to a "real" cd, or a cd ripped and encoded with lame and nice settings, then reburned (both sound great), vs. listening to a cd of burned songs, ranging from 128 to 192, although I would imagine the 192's are close enough that I couldn't ever pick them out.

BTW, I listen to some *really* loud, busy, crazy music, and that's the type of stuff that tends to push mp3s into sounding like ass at lower bitrates. Quiet, mellow stuff might sound awesome at 160k, but cryptopsy is gonna be a bit wishy washy at 160k.

btw BingBongWongFooey I hope I'm not coming off pi$$y or anything. I'm not trying to start an inflammatory debate.

Inflammatory is subjective, but I wouldn't call this inflammatory whatsoever. Debate is great, if it weren't for debate I probably wouldn't spend much, if any, time here.

 

[dakels]

I'm only squirming cuz the AC is not on. Not from this debate
I said: "128kpbs is largely considered CD or near CD quality." And I think thats true that most people consider it at or near CD quality. Its not what I think but again I didnt say it was my opinion, just referencing others such as:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cd+quality+kbps+standards+for+MP3

look at the charts
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/teets/projects/ISM6222F102/richarsp/mp3d.html
http://www.audioactive.com/intro/papers/backbone.html

Like I said it all depends on the setup too. Some people will say 192+ but I find the majority say 128 is CD quality. Where they get this from, don't ask me. What I do know is that I have never heard anyone in real life tell me 128kbps on a good rip sounded like crap, and I work in the music industry (but then again it's with alot of over bassy hip hop so it doesn't say alot ). I know a good ear or an engineer will pick it apart in a second, but most average people couldn't tell if I was playing a CD or a well done MP3 at 128-160.

Now blasting Cryptopsy at any bit rate sounds like a$$ to me -lol j/k

p.s. You made Thump? I want to make a Linux MP3 server but have no idea where to start. Are you still working on that project? Would it be easily portable to OS X? umm maybe we should have this convo in another thread since I don't want to hijack...more