Subject: Re: MP3 rippng too slow
From: johnathan spectre (jspectre@lords.com)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 08:12:17 MST
* Gordon Neault <gordo-x@shaw.ca> [031102 22:05]:
> As for creating audio, let's see...
> From PC CD drive, 44.1/16bit sound is coverted to analog by the CD drives
> onboard D/A converter. (Wonder how much that chip costs?). It then is
> digitized by the SoundBlaster's A/D converter to 48K/16bit (SoundBlasters
> cannot process 44.1 CD's natively, they have a 48K DSP chip. it's a
> cost-saving measure. Resampling a 44.1 signal at 48K cannot fail to
> introduce jitter and waveform abberations
Just for the record, quite a few PC's do digital audio extraction. I don't even have a soundcard in my PC, I don't listen to my MP3's on my PC but rather on my Rio500 and my Awia CD/MP3 player in my truck.
This discussion has blown up a little (but at least it's interesting) but my original point still stands. You typically only rip & encode once, what's saving 10 extra minutes per CD if the quality is that much better every time you listen in the future? Still everyone has their own preferences, isn't it great that we have choices..?
-js
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 08:27:22 MST