On 13 Jun 2003 at 21:54, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> > On 13 Jun 2003 at 20:20, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> > Well, I just put up the 128bit version of one of them. I don't see a
> > *huge* difference. Audible, absolutely. But not what I'd call night
> > and day. It's at:
> >
> > http://www.bway.net
On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 09:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 13 Jun 2003 at 20:20, Darcy James Argue wrote:
All I'm saying is, the upgrades tend to provide significant
improvements. Apple doesn't normally upgrade QT for no good reason.
But whatever, if it's too much trouble, don't bother.
I
On 13 Jun 2003 at 20:20, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 07:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> All I'm saying is, the upgrades tend to provide significant
> improvements. Apple doesn't normally upgrade QT for no good reason.
> But whatever, if it's too much trouble, don'
On 13 Jun 2003 at 20:18, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 07:46 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >I simply can't get it to work.
>
> Andre Wiethoff is very pleasant and I'm sure he'll take you through it on
> your system.
>
> I bought a Fraunhofer codec, and then another came with Cool
On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 07:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It is kinda annoying but each new point release of QuickTime (6.1,
6.2,
6.3) has introduced significant enhancements and improvements. (At
least, the Mac version has.)
Well, I don't use anything but the player -- no musical instrumen
At 07:46 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>I simply can't get it to work.
Andre Wiethoff is very pleasant and I'm sure he'll take you through it on
your system.
I bought a Fraunhofer codec, and then another came with Cool Edit, so I
never noticed an issue with the Lame codec. If you don't
On 13 Jun 2003 at 15:26, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> on 6/13/03 2:43 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> >
> > On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 05:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else wrote and suggested WinAmp, but that's infested with
> >> spyware, as are all the more popular MP3 players,
On 13 Jun 2003 at 17:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 05:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > Well, I've got 6.0. I've not had any problems with it whatsoever. I
> > find it annoying to have to constantly be updating things.
>
> It is kinda annoying but each new poi
On 13 Jun 2003 at 17:23, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 05:01 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Right now I'm struggling with the program Dennis recommended, which
> >seems to make all the files at 192bits, as they are bigger than my
> >128bit files made with FreeRip. EAC also has mo
On 13 Jun 2003 at 14:10, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> on 6/13/03 2:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > Right now I'm struggling with the program Dennis recommended, which
> > seems to make all the files at 192bits, as they are bigger than my
> > 128bit files made with FreeRip. EAC also has more trouble
on 6/13/03 2:43 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 05:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
>> Someone else wrote and suggested WinAmp, but that's infested with
>> spyware, as are all the more popular MP3 players, and I simply won't
>> abide having those kinds of things inst
On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 05:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, I've got 6.0. I've not had any problems with it whatsoever. I
find it annoying to have to constantly be updating things.
It is kinda annoying but each new point release of QuickTime (6.1, 6.2,
6.3) has introduced significant enh
At 05:01 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Right now I'm struggling with the program Dennis recommended, which
>seems to make all the files at 192bits, as they are bigger than my
>128bit files made with FreeRip. EAC also has more trouble keeping
>track of my CD drive, which FreeRip has n
on 6/13/03 2:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> Right now I'm struggling with the program Dennis recommended, which
> seems to make all the files at 192bits, as they are bigger than my
> 128bit files made with FreeRip. EAC also has more trouble keeping
> track of my CD drive, which FreeRip has no pro
On 13 Jun 2003 at 16:03, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 03:00 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> > Well, I want something that is listenable, but still downloadable by
> > dialup users. I'll try some 32-bit samples and see what I think.
>
> I think 32 bps MP3s sound appalling.
On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 03:00 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Hi David,
First off, just a heads-up that you are conflating a couple of
different terms here -- the *bit size* of the sample and the *bits per
second* (i.e., bit transfer rate) of the MP3. All of your MP3s are
16-bit, same as a C
On 13 Jun 2003 at 13:58, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 01:06 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Is there something wrong with the files themselves or is my computer
> >causing a problem somehow? It doesn't appear to me to be related to
> >other activity on the computer (I've watched
Yes, I meant to have that one: 3. Ripping at too fast a speed.
I have one CD that has a few scratches, skips now and then, and it refuses to
be ripped (at that song).. the ripping times out.
chuckie
--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2003 at 10:26, Charles Evans wrote:
At 01:06 PM 6/13/03 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Is there something wrong with the files themselves or is my computer
>causing a problem somehow? It doesn't appear to me to be related to
>other activity on the computer (I've watched the CPU activity and
>there is no spike just where there's a
On 13 Jun 2003 at 10:26, Charles Evans wrote:
> From my experience (only from ripping CDs.. not albums)
>
> 1. Ripping while doing "other things" which causes everything to fight for CPU
> time.
>
> 2. Skips/scratches in the CDs.
I've never had any problems writing CDs while doing other things,
>From my experience (only from ripping CDs.. not albums)
1. Ripping while doing "other things" which causes everything to fight for CPU
time.
2. Skips/scratches in the CDs.
Charles Evans
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm new to ripping MP3 files and have a
After sending a message to the list for posting I received this from
a subscriber:
On 13 Jun 2003 at 10:06, Bob wrote:
> Bob here,
>
> I'm protecting myself from receiving junk mail.
>
> Just this once, click the link below so I can receive your emails.
> You won't have to do this again.
>
>
I'm new to ripping MP3 files and have a bunch of questions based on
my first experiences. Anyone who cares to can answer onlist or in
private email, and I'm perfectly happy to have URL pointers to
information on this, as opposed to patient explanations.
Anyway, I was wondering if someone on the
23 matches
Mail list logo
