[TheJesusGuy]

You know you're an audiophile when you instinctively turn your nose up at any .MP3 under 10MB (and any .FLAC under 25mb)

 

[takato14]

Quote:

You know you're an audiophile when you instinctively turn your nose up at any .MP3 under 10MB (and any .FLAC under 25mb)

... what? That makes no sense. Length of the song determines filesize.

 

[bearFNF]

Quote:

... what? That makes no sense. Length of the song determines filesize.

exactly...

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

... what? That makes no sense. Length of the song determines filesize.

 
No. The sampling rate determines it.
 
A 16/44 file would be around 25 mb. That same track in 24/172 could be upwards of 300 mb.

 

[bearFNF]

Not really important either way its the "turn your nose up" at the file size that matters here I think.  Audiophiles we are...

 

[Argyris]

Quote:

 
No. The sampling rate determines it.
 
A 16/44 file would be around 25 mb. That same track in 24/172 could be upwards of 300 mb.

 
Um...they both do? 

 Not sure why there's confusion here. It's a simple concept:
 
Longer song = more data = larger file size.
Higher bit depth/sampling rate = more data = larger file size.
 
It follows that it's also possible to have a long song encoded with a lower sample rate and/or bit depth that is roughly equal in size to a shorter song encoded in a higher sample and/or bit depth.
 
The bitrate (as reported in kbps) is not affected by song length because the sample size is the same (e.g. one second of a 16/44 song is the same length, obviously, as one second of a 24/96 one; the latter has a higher bitrate, meaning more data per second, than the former).

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
Um...they both do? 

 Not sure why there's confusion here. It's a simple concept:
 
Longer song = more data = larger file size.
Higher bit depth/sampling rate = more data = larger file size.
 
It follows that it's also possible to have a long song encoded with a lower sample rate and/or bit depth that is roughly equal in size to a shorter song encoded in a higher sample and/or bit depth.
 
The bitrate (as reported in kbps) is not affected by song length because the sample size is the same (e.g. one second of a 16/44 song is the same length, obviously, as one second of a 24/96 one; the latter has a higher bitrate, meaning more data per second, than the former).

 
The sample rate affects it much more than the length. 
 
Case in point : http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

 

[Argyris]

Certainly. Maybe I was being pedantic. I just wanted to make sure nobody was under the impression that only one of those two variables has any effect on file size. Of course they both do, just to different magnitudes.
 
 
 
You know you're an audiophile when you see a picture of a hoard of Byzantine coins in one of your classes and think just how many gold-plated connectors and silver cables you could make if you melted down the lot.

 

[ZMZB]

Quote:

You know you're an audiophile when you see a picture of a hoard of Byzantine coins in one of your classes and think just how many gold-plated connectors and silver cables you could make if you melted down the lot.

Let's cryo that crap !!

 

[streetdragon]

i have a song file that is 250MB

 i must be awesome then

(bitrate x sample rate x length of song (seconds) = final size btw. not sure about bitdepth though)

 

[chewy4]

Just bitrate times length is the final size. Bitrate is just a ratio of size to time.
 
An mp3 higher than 16bit/48KHz wouldn't make any sense by the way. Those don't exist.

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

Just bitrate times length is the final size. Bitrate is just a ratio of size to time.
 
An mp3 higher than 16bit/48KHz wouldn't make any sense by the way. Those don't exist.

but its normally either 16bit/48khz or 16bit/44.1khz so sample rate does play a role still in this situation to determine its file size (though not much)

 

[Argyris]

I'm actually not sure why there is a sample rate conversion with MP3 from 44.1kHz to 48kHz, though I know it's a standard option in a lot of older encoders and as such you come across files encoded with that sample rate occasionally. Is it to somehow preserve the high end from getting cut by the encoder?
 
You know you're an audiophile when you take a break from studying to ask questions like this on Head-Fi.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

but its normally either 16bit/48khz or 16bit/44.1khz so sample rate does play a role still in this situation to determine its file size (though not much)

That's factored in to bitrate.
 
 

I'm actually not sure why there is a sample rate conversion with MP3 from 44.1kHz to 48kHz, though I know it's a standard option in a lot of older encoders and as such you come across files encoded with that sample rate occasionally. Is it to somehow preserve the high end from getting cut by the encoder?
 
You know you're an audiophile when you take a break from studying to ask questions like this on Head-Fi.
 

I have no idea why that exists. I would think even a high bitrate mp3 would cut off everything past 22KHz anyways, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never even seen a 48KHz mp3 myself, seems like a dumb concept TBH.

 

[linglingjr]

Quote:

I have no idea why that exists. I would think even a high bitrate mp3 would cut off everything past 22KHz anyways, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never even seen a 48KHz mp3 myself, seems like a dumb concept TBH.

When you look at all your flac files and see that they're all 44.1k 

the only 48k files I have are 30 some mp3s (some of which are 128kbps)