Hey Chris, I really appreciate you�re taking a few minutes to address this. I�m still struggling with Yahoo mail settings here, so bear with me. I�ve got the text width right, but I didn�t used to be able to delete mail I was reading, and have the next email listed forward chronologically pop up. Yahoo would go backwards. So I end up reading replies before the original posts. Yahoo has just reinvented their interface, so I�ll go check settings to see if I can change that.
--- Shel Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I�m not going to be getting that Rio for a while. I�d really like to do >>the audio tests on my good stereo I don�t have access at the moment. >> >>I wonder if there�s anyone else reading the list with direct experience in >>this issue who may be able to address these questions more specifically. >>I�m re-encoding once, not multiple times. >I've done this several times, and it was more than adequate for MY uses. >(Running, working out at the gym) That was my experience on my first tests with this Libretto and these Altec Lansing speakers. The audio quality the speakers is reasonable for a computer system, but not really high end consumer class audio. The Libretto has a very crude sound chip in the Yamaha OPL3-Sax. >Someone made a salient point I think: > >> A while ago I did some tests, I reencoded the same file multiple times >> with the same settings. After 3-5 reencodings everybody was able to >> hear >> artifacts without the need to do an AB comparission. I don't think >> recent LAME versions are better. > >This tells me that the re-encoding process itself will not introduce >easily >heard artifacts until the 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation. This would tend to >indicate that your one time re-encodes will not suffer from this effect so >much as the bitrate loss. Agree? That was my take on it. I�m guessing that the increase in the introduction of noticeable artifacts is going to increase perhaps exponentially (haven�t looked at the math) with a linear increase of number of times the signal is re-encoded. >And here is the best advice given to you so far (IMHO): > >> Just do a little test, reencode one of those 198k CBRs with >> lame --alt-preset 128 --mp3input input.mp3 output.mp3 >> Listen to it on your Rio and decide yourself if it is good enough for >> you. > >If you don't have the Rio yet, use the headphones you will be using with >it and your notebook to make the decision. Unless your notebook has a >really poor sound chip, I don't think it will be too far off the results >you can expect from a portable. You�ve hit on two of my biggest problems at the moment, the poor OPL3-Sax sound chip, and a broken set of already pretty poor headphones. I�m spending a bit of time now with family at one end of the country, while most of my computer and stereo equipment is at the other end. I have a bunch of duplicate MP3s on the Libretto encoded at both 128K and 192K taking up space. They both sound identical through this equipment. I thought maybe I�d just go ahead and re-encode the 192K files with Lane VBR, and shrink them down to about the size of the 128K files, and then axe the 128K files. But I guess I better keep them until I can really A-B them on a Rio, or something with sufficient quality. I was just hoping to get feedback from someone who's been through this. >If you don't plan on replacing the earbuds >that come with the Rio, you can pick up a set of earbuds from Sony or >similar make that for $20 will certainly exceed the quality of the >supplied ones. At least in my experience with three Rio 600s, and Sony's >MDR-ED288 earbuds. My second set, as my stinking cat chewed through the >cord on the first set. :( Ah cats! They can be amusing can�t they? At least when their mischief isn�t presenting a financial calamity. ;-P Thanks for the tip on the earbuds. One reason I�m looking at the Rio is the fact that they have one of the best signal to noise specs of the portables out there I've looked at. Something that still bothers me about them is the proprietary rechargeable battery they come with. You have to buy their expensive battery if you need to replace it. I�d prefer to buy something that uses the NiMH AAs I use for other equipment. I did read a post on the net somewhere where a guy said he disregarded the manufacturer's warning, and went ahead and managed to install common NiMH AAs. He said they seemed to be working fine, at least at the point he wrote the article. This is what�s been holding up my decision to get a Rio. The practical choice as someone pointed out, would be a MP3 CD player. At some point I�ll get one no doubt. But my listening on the run at this point is relatively limited, and the shirt size and light weight of the MP3 portables is pretty attractive to me. >I don't know, perhaps you ought to think about doing the tests on the >target equipment or similar. The Rio's have a pretty good selection of >DSP settings and user defined bass/treble that may make all the >difference in the world for you in the end. By DSP settings, are you referring to its audio equalizer that offers, "..user defined bass/treble.."? That�s another thing I like a lot about the Rio. >When all is said and done, what really counts for >me is enjoyment of the music when and where I want it. If I experiment >with higher end equipment and find some improvement that is inaudible >on the Rio, I tend to feel it was a bit of a waste of my time. Heh... I went through a period edging on high-end snobbery for a while, never really getting too wrapped up in it all (or really that knowledgeable about it). I was sharing a home with a friend who was really "over-the-top", but the most level-headed and practical of the audiophiles in his crowd. So I got quite an education. Not having the kind of income to pursue that level of equipment, I developed a 'when in Rome' adaptability to whatever kind of system was around at the moment. If a person can be more infatuated and thrilled a greater percentage of the time with music coming through a $19.95 Walkman than an audiophile with his $40,000 setup, he�s ahead in the game as far as I can see! Of course I�m always in awe of the sound coming from most high-end systems. But a good deal of the audiophiles I�ve known seemed to derive more pleasure with hours and hours tweaking their systems, as opposed to spending the same amount of time actually listening to their recordings! >>Maybe I'm catching the list at a time when the none of the current >>readership has done these sorts of experiments. > >Well I have, but I consider them very subjective, and of little use to >those with different tastes, expectations and degrees of hearing ability. :) > >>Thanks again for any thoughts on all this. > >Those were mine. I hope they help a little. This is just the sort of feedback I appreciate Chris. Maybe a few more listers have their own takes on how much, of any noticeable distortion thry�ve noticed when attempting to shrink a few irreplaceable 192K+ MP3s. Ciao for now, Shel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
