Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (110725)	5/13/2000 1:18:00 PM
From: Paul Ma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572945

i use audio catalyst. What do you use? Paul

To: Joe NYC who wrote (110725)	5/14/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572945

Joe, Well One thing I like about WMA is at 128bits it 'appears' to have more full spectrum fidelity. Because of the finer ganulation of the audio space in the WMA format, you can throw out 'dead' frequencies more easily, resulting in more efficient sotrage. We almost need an Mp3-2, because if you give WMA an honest unbiased shot, you will find that for a given bitrate the WMA sounds better. And besides WMA->MP3 is a simple matter of WMA->wav->MP3 and takes all of about 30 seconds for a 4 minute track on my main workstation ;) As for what everyone else is using, when have I ever let that stop me. Everyone was using Intel CPUs and I was buying Cyrix and AMD ;) Variable rate MP3s are nice. I cut most MP3s I make to variable rate. The only problem with variable rate MP3s (and perhaps why not many use them) is the size of the file is an unknown going in. I'm seen some (some older U2 for example) encodes at an average of about 89kbps. However some of the newer U2 tracks (with lots of different instrumetns etc.) encode at an average of 200+kbps. Steve