Page 1 of 1
'mass storage device' resampling/conversion'
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:37 am
The one thing that forces me to go back to wmp10 is the re-sampling of music with portable devices.
the philips key 505 does work with mm, but its just copying the songs over. I would rather it convert/ resample them. For instance. If i had some mp3 fiels i woukd like mm to put wma 64k files on my portable device, so i could have more files on there, especially because all my files are mp3 256!!!
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:45 am
It's already on the wishlist.
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:22 pm
I was just curious of what edgefieldsaid earlier
If i had some mp3 fiels i woukd like mm to put wma 64k files on my portable device, so i could have more files on there, especially because all my files are mp3 256!!!
Does this mean that you want the mp3s to be good quality on the computer and have them convert into a lower quality for your mp3 player automatically when you sync them?
If thats what you mean, then I too like the idea and think that the MM team should seriously think about adding it (if you have not already done so) because I have a 128mb (or 122mb after formatting) BenQ Joybee 150 and keep on having to convert my mp3s to 128 or 160 bitrates so i can fit enough mp3s onto the player, without losing quality on the computer. I think it would be great if MM would do this automatically when syncronising music to a player.
Julian AKA Julzcompufreek
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:09 am
That's what is meant here, and I think most portable player owners would enjoy such a feature very much as space is limited on most portable players. And of course formats come in play to.
The problem would be how long this proces would take.
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:58 pm
Yes I suppose you a right Lowlander, it already takes a while to transfer music on to a non-high speed (eg. USB 1.1) compatible mp3 player. Plus if you add the coversion time, that would take a very long time.
I takes me about 5 to 10 minutes to transfer 122mb of music onto my mp3 player (which is not high-speed) and it would probably take 5 times longer if you add conversion, which would take roughly about an hour.
I'm not sure though if the speed of converting varies with faster or slow processors or sound cards or how much RAM you have. Can someone please confirm that this is true or not?
Anyway, its upto the developers to decide wether it is worth it.
Julian aka julzcompufreek
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:57 am
No, I certainly think it should be included. It's just a warning to the users out there, that this might be a slow process, a lot slower than people think off.
Of course the machine you use can make a difference, but I just wanted to give a caution that this will not be some institaneous event where all songs were transferred and converted.
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:55 am
well wmp10 does it quite well, and quickly, whislt holding ur playlist
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:15 am
Of course WMP isn't good comparison as its a MS product. But anyway it's just a warning, it all depends on which formats are involved and the quality of the encoder.
And anyway fast is a relative thing, depends on each persons perception.
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:41 pm
well surly having the option to do somthing in a program is not a bad thing.
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:59 pm
No, I think that it would be a great addition despite the fact that I don't use a portable device.