MTU.Community


Go Back   MTU.Community > Hoster Software > Hoster Help

Hoster Help Post Hoster questions, tips and suggestions here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th, 2003, 01:50 AM
Mr Music Mr Music is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Garden State NJ
Posts: 19
Lightbulb Hoster settings

What is every one useing for thier settings for importing disc and how have the results been?

I was using 96 k and the defalt settings on my DK discs but it sounds to compressed and seems recorded to low.

Whats your thoughts?

Chris
  #2  
Old April 9th, 2003, 08:24 AM
kedmison kedmison is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 491
Post Hoster Settings

Chris,

I experimented for quite awhile before I made up my mind. I did one discs in both 128k and 96k and listened for what I thought was the best sound. techniquely, yes, it will sound better with less compression but I urge you to really listen and try to tell the difference. My laptop runs through a Mackie CFX-12 mixer. What very little noticable difference in 128k and 96k I was able to adjust with the mixer where no difference could be detected. Therefore I opted to go with 128K and save a little more room on the hard drive. Try the same songs at different compression and invite a few people in to listen to which they think sounds best. You might be suprised. Good Luck.

Kelly
  #3  
Old April 9th, 2003, 06:23 PM
Mr Music Mr Music is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Garden State NJ
Posts: 19
Lightbulb 128k vs 96k

Correct me if I am Wrong but isint 96 k a tighter compression making the file smaller?

I was Told the 96k in this format wma is like a 128 k in mp3 format. I do my mp3 for PCDJ in 128 and it proves to be pretty darn good but the 128k with hoster is like double inside.

Any idea on this.

Chris
  #4  
Old April 9th, 2003, 06:31 PM
kedmison kedmison is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 491
Post Compression

Chris,

Yes, the 96k is a tighter compression than the 128k. As I had said, I couldn't tell enoguh difference in quality so I went with the tighter compression (96) to save a little more space on the hard drive. How it compares to MP3 I'm not sure. I did do some research on the web a while back in the difference between wma and MP3. I would say that 9 out of 10 of the sites that I checked stated that wma had a better sound quality. You might go to google and check out the different articles.



Kelly
  #5  
Old April 9th, 2003, 07:07 PM
Mr Music Mr Music is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Garden State NJ
Posts: 19
96k vs 128

OK I am useing the 96K as well I guess I read your post wrong sounded like you were useing the 128k. Have you messed around with the other settings for Compression and limiting?

Chris
  #6  
Old April 10th, 2003, 08:11 AM
kedmison kedmison is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 491
Post Settings

Chris,

No I haven't used the other settings yet,...and also you need to make sure you use the the right post for these questions, we're in the testamonial section.

Kelly
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2009 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The contents of this forum are copyrighted by Micro Technology Unlimited, 2000-2008. Use of any material from these Forums is prohibited without written agreement from MTU.