Altmann Tera Player - Page 119  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achmedisdead 

Everything you said made sense but the part I highlighted....lol.  If you'd said "basically making a much larger version of the same 320 file" that would have been a better description.

 that sucks.  So even though you aren't storing the same amount of info as a lossless file, you'd still be using the same amount of space? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSC 

 that sucks.  So even though you aren't storing the same amount of info as a lossless file, you'd still be using the same amount of space? 

True. Much better to re-rip, if you can.

et al:  thanks for info on converting mp3 to wav format :)

Your welcome. I don't think you're making a much larger file. a CD rip that is encoded straight to WAV is gonna be larger than a mp3 converted to WAV. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSC 

et al:  thanks for info on converting mp3 to wav format :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenman345 

Your welcome. I don't think you're making a much larger file. a CD rip that is encoded straight to WAV is gonna be larger than a mp3 converted to WAV. 

Actually it will be the same size as a rip since the bitrate is constant on a WAV. So a WAV of a certain length that is ripped will be the same size as one that is converted. It only depends on the length of the song.

I get what you're saying, but if you have a 320kbps mp3, wont your WAV be 320kbps? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirmalanow 

Actually it will be the same size as a rip since the bitrate is constant on a WAV. So a WAV of a certain length that is ripped will be the same size as one that is converted. It only depends on the length of the song.

It's never recommended to upconvert a 320kbps mp3 file to lossless of any type. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenman345 

I get what you're saying, but if you have a 320kbps mp3, wont your WAV be 320kbps? 

If it is say a standard 16bit WAV file, then it will have these properties:

- Bit rate: 1411 kbps
- Audio sample size: 16 bit
- Audio sample rate: 44 khz

This means that 2 WAV files of the same length (in seconds or minutes) will always be the same size if they are encoded with the same 16/44 settings . However, there are variations such as if the sample size or rate is higher or lower which would also change the bitrate. I am not sure if the Tera would play a file with a lower sample size or sample rate than 16/44, although it does play the higher rates. I do not know if a lower sample size and rate would detract from the sound, since I have only used WAVs created or ripped with the standard settings.

So the answer is no, the WAV would be 1411 kbps. Just as when you convert from wav to mp3 the file size gets smaller, if you convert from mp3 to WAV the file size gets bigger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tds101 

It's never recommended to upconvert a 320kbps mp3 file to lossless of any type. 

Will a upconverted file sound worse than the original mp3?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirmalanow 

Will a upconverted file sound worse than the original mp3?

It will sound the same as the mp3 file. it would mean the sq is not the same as a WAV ripped from a cd or a lossless to lossless conversion. 

If mp3 files are inferior in sq then all you do is create a lossless file with a larger size & the mp3's inferior sq. Hence, the Tera Player is a waste in that instance. 

Rip from a cd or convert from a lossless file only,...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tds101 

It will sound the same as the mp3 file. it would mean the sq is not the same as a WAV ripped from a cd or a lossless to lossless conversion. 

 

If mp3 files are inferior in sq then all you do is create a lossless file with a larger size & the mp3's inferior sq. Hence, the Tera Player is a waste in that instance. 

 

Rip from a cd or convert from a lossless file only,...

Thanks. That is what I thought was true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFlight 


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you personally considered the TP to be an abberation. It's just that other, more vocal, folks who never saw or heard one implied that those who purchased the player were either naive, gullible or foolishly paid an exhorbitant amount of money to an individual who maybe cared more about money than scruples.

Please accept my apologies for the poor choice of wording on my part.

No prob and no apologies needed nor offense taken.  I was just making sure that my position was clear in case I happen to be included.

Sometimes an mp3 is all you got.

There was this guy (Smooth) who recorded obsolete vinyl and offered mp3 versions on his blog 'myjazzworld', until he got sued / was threatened by attorneys, so he sadly discontinued his project.

The function of his blog was to share only stuff that was long out of print, he did not mean to harm anybody's financial interest.

I loaded a bunch of those records and was very happy that I got the opportunity to learn about music/artists that otherwise I would have never the opportunity to know. 

As this is all great music - on mp3's - and I probably never have the chance to get any better version, I just drop them on the XLD icon and have them on the Tera, not much thought about it.

If its a good mp3 it will sound good, and if a particular recording becomes available on CD, then I can buy the CD which I would never even know about if there wasn't this guy (Smooth) with his famous blog ...

Charles :)

Makes me wonder what the lowest bit rate is that it can play. You could probably transscode MP3 to below 16/44. Meh, probably not worth saving the space.