MP3 Resizer

[Pirlo]

mp3 resizer 1.0
thank you

[the gaffer]

http://www.oldversion.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1245

[Windows 2000 SP4]

MP3 resize huh try switch, you can also fix all your music files from being joint-sterio to sterio

[locustfurnace]

Originally Posted by Windows 2000 SP4

MP3 resize huh try switch, you can also fix all your music files from being joint-sterio to sterio

The music cannot be accurately reconstructed from joint-stereo to stereo. If the music is joint-stereo. Leave it, you 're better off with the reduced filesize.

[Windows 2000 Professional]

If you got good speakers now download a song check to see if it's joint then run switch program and you gonna notice the difference. Alot of music files out there now nobody dont know much how to covert them correct so they burn it on there harddrive 320kb's you know that's not gonna sound good and on top of that be 15mb file size over 4 minute song.

You where talking about that one time ago, I do find a difference from joint stereo to stereo at 192kb or 128kb. http://nch.com.au/switch/index.html

[the gaffer]

with the ever growing size of hard disks nowadays does file size matter so much ? certainly doesnt matter to me,but as this is the request board i wont drag it off topic.

[locustfurnace]

Originally Posted by the gaffer

with the ever growing size of hard disks nowadays does file size matter so much ? certainly doesnt matter to me,but as this is the request board i wont drag it off topic.

Well, that all depends. Sure you can now easily pick up 1TB drives. And with the emergence of recordable Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's with capacity over 20gig per disk it seems like filesize issues are no longer going be be an issue.

Personally. I still prefer to cram as much info as I can onto a DL-DVD. If I could fit 1,000 MP3's on it. Then surely i can fit 1,200 OGGS and maybe even 1,300 AAC encoded songs. So i go where I can still cram more data into less space.

I prefer to buy Paperback books, as they take up less space on my bookshelfs. Sure, i can always build more bookcases but I'd rather have more in less space.

When I encode movies. I still try to compress as much as I can before unsightly artifacts become present. Most of the times I encode the audio portion as 96kbps. Depending on the source material.
It's great to be able to fit 22 epsiodes (an entire season) of a television show on a single Dual-Layer DVD.

If I travel somewhere for an extended period of time. I can now fit much more entertainment on a laptop and/or lug around far fewer DVD's.

Originally Posted by Windows 2000 Professional

If you got good speakers now download a song check to see if it's joint then run switch program and you gonna notice the difference. Alot of music files out there now nobody dont know much how to covert them correct so they burn it on there harddrive 320kb's you know that's not gonna sound good and on top of that be 15mb file size over 4 minute song.

You where talking about that one time ago, I do find a difference from joint stereo to stereo at 192kb or 128kb.

It's possible to create a different 'sounding' song from the original, sure. It all depends on what exactly the program is doing. Maybe it is filtering all the right channel from 11500 - 13500khz. and sending that to the left channel ONLY. Sure, you can create what appears to be a stereo song even from one that was MONO.
A little phase shifting, some panning...

But it is not going to be able to recreate it as the original author intended if the song was made into joint-stereo.

I am still unsure why you believe encoding music at 320kbps sounds bad. The more bits you give the better the encode, the larger the filesize ofcourse.