• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MP3 Pro, AMAZING!!!

wonderful. now care to give a wee bit more informacione, paisan ? 🙂

this is not the first i heard about the latest audio toy. i'd like some
links to download and test myself (ourselves), if you please. i read
something about mp3pro being more compressed and what not. is it free ?
any bugs yet ? etc.
 
If you can tell the difference between a 160 and 192 khz encoded regular MP3 then you can tell the difference between a regular mp3 and a mp3pro. If not, I don't think you would be able to tell the difference.
 
That's what was said with 128kb/s MP3. I reckon even PCM isn't good enough. It's not quite perfect and I want perfection baby!
 
SuperCyrix

Fuzzy Math Man,

650/1.83 = 355 not 1420

Once they have DVD-R MP3 Players, it's going to be a different story.

 
355 would be the number of songs on the cd if every song were 1.83 mb.
1440 min is indeed the amount of time on the cd.
I think..
 
Oh, of course 1420 min, I just used SuperCyrix's numbers, but somehow wrote 1440 instead. Just wanted to show that SuperCyrix wasn't wrong.
 
NovoN,

Me engineering degree make me learn many math. But english go down the hole so my not speak and write very well. Matlab destroying ability to speak math as also too. Not long time before Simpson genes kicked in.

 
It doesn't surprise me since you're comparing it to a crappy "reference" anyways...

CD "quality" is pretty poor.

Cheers!
 
people who think CD quality is pretty poor should try listening to a crackly vinyl... or an audiocassette.. or pulling their head out of their perfecltly acoustic ass.
 
Mp3Pro kinda sucks.. it makes REALLY ugly sacrifices to decrease file size.. quality definitely suffers.

Ogg Vorbis is better.
 


<< people who think CD quality is pretty poor should try listening to a crackly vinyl... or an audiocassette.. or pulling their head out of their perfecltly acoustic ass. >>


hmm, you haven't heard DVD-Audio have you?
 


<< It doesn't surprise me since you're comparing it to a crappy &quot;reference&quot; anyways...

CD &quot;quality&quot; is pretty poor.

Cheers! >>



youre a twit.
 


<<

<< people who think CD quality is pretty poor should try listening to a crackly vinyl... or an audiocassette.. or pulling their head out of their perfecltly acoustic ass. >>


hmm, you haven't heard DVD-Audio have you? >>



you too!
 
Anyone that thinks that CD &quot;quality&quot; is good is either too young to remember what really good hifi is all about OR isn't an audiophile.

Problem is modern music and its mastering just doesn't tax the medium. Analogue records and tapes do indeed sound better than a CD.

For most people, a CD sounds better and is better because a tape player that costs the same will have inferior sound. A CD can't hold a candle to a good deck such as the Nakamichi Dragon. Now if we compare phonographs, the same argument will hold true.

Most audiophiles will balk at the term CD Quality. With decent equipment (DAC's and processing) the resolution limitation of 16 bit medium can be made more bearable. It still can't hold a candle to 20 and 24 bit audio. 24 bit 192 kHz audio sounds so much more open and defined than a CD it's not funny.

Obviously one would choose the most rugged and portable format in the car. Of course, the car is a very hostile environment in the first place.

Musical storage and playback is much more than signal to noise ratio and frequency response, folks.

Cheers!
 
this is sick
don't tell me you don't even listen to a song if it's encoded like at 128 kbps (regular mp3)..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top