Downloading Music to my P.C. - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Downloading Music to my P.C. - Mandriva ; Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98 Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst I do stuff on the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Downloading Music to my P.C.

  1. Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98

    Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to
    my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst I
    do stuff on the computer.

    I live out of town a bit, so have a dial-up account, but I very rarely
    go anywhere near my accounts monthly download limit of 150MB.

    So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).

    Any help appreciated.

    TIA

    Daniel

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:05:08 +1000, Daniel wrote:

    > So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    > got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    > free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).


    Don't know where, but if you can choose the encoding bitrate, then using 8
    instead of 128 the file size will be 16 times smaller. 1MB vs. 64K. Makes
    a huge difference if you plan on loading them into an mp3 player. And the
    human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per second and
    8,000 samples per second. At least none of the humans I know, including
    myself. So now my wifes 256MB $10 mp3 player holds 16 times as many songs.
    But I didn't dl these. Just ripped them from her cd's.

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm


  3. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Wes Newell wrote:

    > And the human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per
    > second and 8,000 samples per second.


    You'd better get your hearing checked out! The difference is vast if you
    can actually hear...

    C.


  4. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Wes Newell wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:05:08 +1000, Daniel wrote:
    >
    >> So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    >> got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    >> free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).

    >
    > Don't know where, but if you can choose the encoding bitrate, then using 8
    > instead of 128 the file size will be 16 times smaller. 1MB vs. 64K. Makes
    > a huge difference if you plan on loading them into an mp3 player. And the
    > human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per second and
    > 8,000 samples per second. At least none of the humans I know, including
    > myself. So now my wifes 256MB $10 mp3 player holds 16 times as many songs.
    > But I didn't dl these. Just ripped them from her cd's.
    >


    I find the highly compressed MP3's horrible to listen to. The fact that
    most human ears cannot hear a pure 8000 htz signal is misleading. In
    fact, if you play an 8000 Hz signal at the same time as a 2000 Hz
    signal, the higher harmonic will change the tone significantly. It does
    that by changing the *shape* of the waveform, which is quite audible to
    the human ear. The differences between a C note played on a violin and a
    C note played on a whistle are all in wave shape, not frequency.

    I've also found that the higher compression ratios bugger up the timing.
    They do not deal well with silences, such as between piano notes, very well.

    You may be short-changing yourself, based on half the facts. I can hear
    the difference between 8000 samples per second and 12,000 quite easily.
    My roomy, who is a trained musician with perfect pitch, can tell between
    12,000 and 20,000, though I cannot.

    Donald

  5. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:00:54 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >
    >> And the human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per
    >> second and 8,000 samples per second.

    >
    > You'd better get your hearing checked out! The difference is vast if you
    > can actually hear...
    >

    Technically the difference is 128,00 samples per second to 8,000 samples
    per second. If you can distinguish 8,000 different tones in a second with
    your hearing then you must have married Lois Lane. the point is, that
    128,000 is a lot of overkill for most people. Want something better than 8
    then use 16, 32, or even 64K will cut the size in half. I'll garauntee
    that if I played the same song at each sample rate, no one, including you
    could get them in order. I played a song here at 8K and 128K for several
    people and they all said both sounded the same to them. Good enough
    for me, and my wife who actually listens to it hasn't complained. Maybe
    you're just pissed because you spent hundreds on a large memory compacity
    mp3 player.:-)

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm


  6. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:41:57 -0400, donald tees wrote:

    > You may be short-changing yourself, based on half the facts. I can hear
    > the difference between 8000 samples per second and 12,000 quite easily.
    > My roomy, who is a trained musician with perfect pitch, can tell between
    > 12,000 and 20,000, though I cannot.


    Whatever you think. One should should experiment use the sampling rate
    that appeals to them. For me, that's 16K simply because under 8K is
    unbearable and I wanted a little cushion. But just to be sure I wasn't
    dreaming i just ripped a song at both 8K and 128K and listened to each
    several times. Couldn't tell the difference. Before anyone here makes a
    judgement, I'd suggest you do the same. Perhaps it'll be at 16K or even
    32K where you can't tell the difference. here's the size difference
    between 128K and 8K. 155K vs. 2.48M.

    2483532 Jul 11 15:35 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3

    155526 Jul 11 15:39 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm


  7. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.


    "donald tees" wrote in message
    news:weOdnQzPPPjmrwjbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@golden.net.. .
    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:05:08 +1000, Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >>> So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    >>> got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    >>> free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).

    >>
    >> Don't know where, but if you can choose the encoding bitrate, then using
    >> 8
    >> instead of 128 the file size will be 16 times smaller. 1MB vs. 64K. Makes
    >> a huge difference if you plan on loading them into an mp3 player. And the
    >> human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per second
    >> and
    >> 8,000 samples per second. At least none of the humans I know, including
    >> myself. So now my wifes 256MB $10 mp3 player holds 16 times as many
    >> songs.
    >> But I didn't dl these. Just ripped them from her cd's.
    >>

    >
    > I find the highly compressed MP3's horrible to listen to. The fact that
    > most human ears cannot hear a pure 8000 htz signal is misleading. In fact,
    > if you play an 8000 Hz signal at the same time as a 2000 Hz signal, the
    > higher harmonic will change the tone significantly. It does that by
    > changing the *shape* of the waveform, which is quite audible to the human
    > ear. The differences between a C note played on a violin and a C note
    > played on a whistle are all in wave shape, not frequency.
    >
    > I've also found that the higher compression ratios bugger up the timing.
    > They do not deal well with silences, such as between piano notes, very
    > well.
    >
    > You may be short-changing yourself, based on half the facts. I can hear
    > the difference between 8000 samples per second and 12,000 quite easily. My
    > roomy, who is a trained musician with perfect pitch, can tell between
    > 12,000 and 20,000, though I cannot.
    >

    Through a little set of headfones on a stick mp3 player?



  8. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Daniel wrote:

    > Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98
    >
    > Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to
    > my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst I
    > do stuff on the computer.
    >
    > I live out of town a bit, so have a dial-up account, but I very rarely
    > go anywhere near my accounts monthly download limit of 150MB.
    >
    > So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    > got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    > free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).
    >
    > Any help appreciated.
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Daniel
    >

    To answer your question, try Limewire or any of your internet radio stations
    and you should be able to record right off the stations.

    Limewire is file sharing program. You can use Amarok for your internet radio
    and there's a program which I can't remember you use to record.

    Good Luck,
    Rich
    --
    "You can lead them to LINUX
    but you can't make them THINK"

  9. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Wes Newell wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:00:54 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Wes Newell wrote:
    >>
    >>> And the human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per
    >>> second and 8,000 samples per second.

    >>
    >> You'd better get your hearing checked out! The difference is vast if you
    >> can actually hear...
    >>

    > Technically the difference is 128,00 samples per second to 8,000 samples
    > per second. If you can distinguish 8,000 different tones in a second with
    > your hearing then you must have married Lois Lane. the point is, that
    > 128,000 is a lot of overkill for most people. Want something better than 8
    > then use 16, 32, or even 64K will cut the size in half. I'll garauntee
    > that if I played the same song at each sample rate, no one, including you
    > could get them in order. I played a song here at 8K and 128K for several
    > people and they all said both sounded the same to them. Good enough
    > for me, and my wife who actually listens to it hasn't complained. Maybe
    > you're just pissed because you spent hundreds on a large memory compacity
    > mp3 player.:-)


    You obviously don't understand how digital audio works. The difference
    between 8 kb/s and 128 kb/s is entirely obvious to anyone with normal
    hearing. The difference is roughly the same as listening to AM radio
    against a CD. If you can't hear the difference, I'm sorry for you because
    you're suffering from severe hearing loss.

    C.

  10. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:00:54 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wes Newell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And the human ear can't tell the difference between 128,000 samples per
    >>>> second and 8,000 samples per second.
    >>>
    >>> You'd better get your hearing checked out! The difference is vast if
    >>> you can actually hear...
    >>>

    >> Technically the difference is 128,00 samples per second to 8,000 samples
    >> per second. If you can distinguish 8,000 different tones in a second with
    >> your hearing then you must have married Lois Lane. the point is, that
    >> 128,000 is a lot of overkill for most people. Want something better than
    >> 8 then use 16, 32, or even 64K will cut the size in half. I'll garauntee
    >> that if I played the same song at each sample rate, no one, including you
    >> could get them in order. I played a song here at 8K and 128K for several
    >> people and they all said both sounded the same to them. Good enough
    >> for me, and my wife who actually listens to it hasn't complained. Maybe
    >> you're just pissed because you spent hundreds on a large memory compacity
    >> mp3 player.:-)

    >
    > You obviously don't understand how digital audio works. The difference
    > between 8 kb/s and 128 kb/s is entirely obvious to anyone with normal
    > hearing. The difference is roughly the same as listening to AM radio
    > against a CD. If you can't hear the difference, I'm sorry for you because
    > you're suffering from severe hearing loss.
    >
    > C.


    Further: I just encoded the same track at 8, 16, 32 , 64 and 128 kb/s. Each
    step was obvious on playback, and to make sure it wasn't "golden ears"
    syndrome, I got my wife to identify which "sounded better", playing them
    back in random order. She had difficulty distinguishing 64 from 128,
    but /all/ sounded "degraded" compared to the original, and on second
    listening (again in random order) with different material, she could pick
    128 kb/s.

    Granted, we're not using toy "in-ear" phones - we're using good quality
    studio monitor speakers - but the differences at differing sample rates
    will be obvious to all but the deaf!

    C.

  11. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Rich wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >
    >> Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98
    >>
    >> Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to
    >> my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst I
    >> do stuff on the computer.
    >>
    >> I live out of town a bit, so have a dial-up account, but I very rarely
    >> go anywhere near my accounts monthly download limit of 150MB.
    >>
    >> So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    >> got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    >> free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).
    >>
    >> Any help appreciated.
    >>
    >> TIA
    >>
    >> Daniel
    >>

    > To answer your question, try Limewire or any of your internet radio stations
    > and you should be able to record right off the stations.
    >
    > Limewire is file sharing program. You can use Amarok for your internet radio
    > and there's a program which I can't remember you use to record.
    >
    > Good Luck,
    > Rich


    Thanks for your reply, Rich. I didn't mean to start the war that
    features in the rest of this thread, so I appreciate your suggestion.

    I had a bit of a look at Limewire on my Sisters computer and got the
    impression it was later versions of Windows only, so will have to have
    another look if you're suggesting it's Linux capable.

    Daniel

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  12. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Daniel wrote:

    > Rich wrote:
    >> Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98
    >>>
    >>> Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to
    >>> my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst I
    >>> do stuff on the computer.
    >>>
    >>> I live out of town a bit, so have a dial-up account, but I very rarely
    >>> go anywhere near my accounts monthly download limit of 150MB.
    >>>
    >>> So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    >>> got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    >>> free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).
    >>>
    >>> Any help appreciated.
    >>>
    >>> TIA
    >>>
    >>> Daniel
    >>>

    >> To answer your question, try Limewire or any of your internet radio
    >> stations and you should be able to record right off the stations.
    >>
    >> Limewire is file sharing program. You can use Amarok for your internet
    >> radio and there's a program which I can't remember you use to record.
    >>
    >> Good Luck,
    >> Rich

    >
    > Thanks for your reply, Rich. I didn't mean to start the war that
    > features in the rest of this thread, so I appreciate your suggestion.
    >
    > I had a bit of a look at Limewire on my Sisters computer and got the
    > impression it was later versions of Windows only, so will have to have
    > another look if you're suggesting it's Linux capable.
    >
    > Daniel
    >

    There's a version for linux. And yes that's the way these guys always react
    to some questions. They fail to answer the original questions and go on a
    rant about something completely irrelevant.
    --
    "You can lead them to LINUX
    but you can't make them THINK"

  13. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.


    "Rich" wrote in message
    news:5Jqli.40476$sq4.13985@trnddc05...
    > Daniel wrote:
    >
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> Daniel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Dual boot system - MandriveLinux 2007 and Win 98
    >>>>
    >>>> Lately, I've been listening to some music that, years ago, I copied to
    >>>> my Win98 partition and I've been using Amarok to play the music whilst
    >>>> I
    >>>> do stuff on the computer.
    >>>>
    >>>> I live out of town a bit, so have a dial-up account, but I very rarely
    >>>> go anywhere near my accounts monthly download limit of 150MB.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, now I want to try downloading some tunes from the net. Has anybody
    >>>> got suggestions of how best to do this, where to do it from (preferably
    >>>> free or low cost. Is iTunes a possibility?).
    >>>>
    >>>> Any help appreciated.
    >>>>
    >>>> TIA
    >>>>
    >>>> Daniel
    >>>>
    >>> To answer your question, try Limewire or any of your internet radio
    >>> stations and you should be able to record right off the stations.
    >>>
    >>> Limewire is file sharing program. You can use Amarok for your internet
    >>> radio and there's a program which I can't remember you use to record.
    >>>
    >>> Good Luck,
    >>> Rich

    >>
    >> Thanks for your reply, Rich. I didn't mean to start the war that
    >> features in the rest of this thread, so I appreciate your suggestion.
    >>
    >> I had a bit of a look at Limewire on my Sisters computer and got the
    >> impression it was later versions of Windows only, so will have to have
    >> another look if you're suggesting it's Linux capable.
    >>
    >> Daniel
    >>

    > There's a version for linux. And yes that's the way these guys always
    > react
    > to some questions. They fail to answer the original questions and go on a
    > rant about something completely irrelevant.


    Given the fact he states his monthly download limit is 150mb, file size and
    thus quality might not be as irrelevant as you suggest.



  14. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    donald tees wrote:


    >>

    >
    > I find the highly compressed MP3's horrible to listen to. The fact that
    > most human ears cannot hear a pure 8000 htz signal is misleading.


    Misleading? It's not even a fact! The normal hearing cutoff is usually well
    over 12KHz, and it's commonplace for young people to be able to hear
    >15Khz. Even age-deteriorated eardrums could probably hear an 8Khz tone.


    Morse

  15. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Wes Newell wrote:

    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:41:57 -0400, donald tees wrote:
    >
    >> You may be short-changing yourself, based on half the facts. I can hear
    >> the difference between 8000 samples per second and 12,000 quite easily.
    >> My roomy, who is a trained musician with perfect pitch, can tell between
    >> 12,000 and 20,000, though I cannot.

    >
    > Whatever you think. One should should experiment use the sampling rate
    > that appeals to them. For me, that's 16K simply because under 8K is
    > unbearable and I wanted a little cushion. But just to be sure I wasn't
    > dreaming i just ripped a song at both 8K and 128K and listened to each
    > several times. Couldn't tell the difference. Before anyone here makes a
    > judgement, I'd suggest you do the same.
    > Perhaps it'll be at 16K or even
    > 32K where you can't tell the difference. here's the size difference
    > between 128K and 8K. 155K vs. 2.48M.
    >
    > 2483532 Jul 11 15:35 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3
    >
    > 155526 Jul 11 15:39 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3
    >



    Are you talking about bitrate or sample rate? These are two different things
    altogether and you seem to use the two terms interchangeably.

    128K is generally accepted amongst mp3 buffs as the lowest bitrate
    for half-decent (and I stress the 'half' part!) quality audio and is a good
    tradeoff v filesize. Less than that and compression artifacts and bandwidth
    limitations make it unattractive. 8K bitrate is by any sensible definition
    telephone quality and unsuitable for music reproduction, which is why
    no-one uses it for anything other than speech archiving where space is
    critical. Check the filesharing networks and legal mp3 sites if you don't
    believe me.

    Sample rate is something entirely different- 44.1Khz is the most common for
    music mp3 files. You may well get away with lower sample rates without too
    much loss in *apparent* quality on low quality gear, but even tinny laptop
    speakers will reveal the shortcomings of 8K music!

    Morse

  16. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:26:59 +0100, Morse wrote:

    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:41:57 -0400, donald tees wrote:
    >>
    >>> You may be short-changing yourself, based on half the facts. I can hear
    >>> the difference between 8000 samples per second and 12,000 quite easily.
    >>> My roomy, who is a trained musician with perfect pitch, can tell between
    >>> 12,000 and 20,000, though I cannot.

    >>
    >> Whatever you think. One should should experiment use the sampling rate
    >> that appeals to them. For me, that's 16K simply because under 8K is
    >> unbearable and I wanted a little cushion. But just to be sure I wasn't
    >> dreaming i just ripped a song at both 8K and 128K and listened to each
    >> several times. Couldn't tell the difference. Before anyone here makes a
    >> judgement, I'd suggest you do the same.
    >> Perhaps it'll be at 16K or even
    >> 32K where you can't tell the difference. here's the size difference
    >> between 128K and 8K. 155K vs. 2.48M.
    >>
    >> 2483532 Jul 11 15:35 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3
    >>
    >> 155526 Jul 11 15:39 10_smoke_get_in_your_eyes__the_platters.mp3
    >>

    >
    >
    > Are you talking about bitrate or sample rate? These are two different things
    > altogether and you seem to use the two terms interchangeably.
    >

    Actually I'm referring to the bitrate.

    > 128K is generally accepted amongst mp3 buffs as the lowest
    > bitrate for half-decent (and I stress the 'half' part!) quality audio
    > and is a good tradeoff v filesize. Less than that and compression
    > artifacts and bandwidth limitations make it unattractive. 8K bitrate is
    > by any sensible definition telephone quality and unsuitable for music
    > reproduction, which is why no-one uses it for anything other than speech
    > archiving where space is critical. Check the filesharing networks and
    > legal mp3 sites if you don't believe me.


    I'm not an MP3 buff. And I don't guess anyone I know is either as the 8K
    rate seems to be acceptible to all that's listened to it. I loaded 5
    really cheap 128MB mp3 players with a bunch of songs ripped right from
    their own CD's at an 8K bitrate and they loved it. Now these were kids
    between 12 and 17 (one was over 60). Maybe their hearing hasn't developed
    good yet.

    >
    > Sample rate is something entirely different- 44.1Khz is the most common
    > for music mp3 files. You may well get away with lower sample rates
    > without too much loss in *apparent* quality on low quality gear, but
    > even tinny laptop speakers will reveal the shortcomings of 8K
    > music!
    >

    They sound great on all the TV's connected to my MythTV system. For the
    record, this is mpeg2 or 2.5 at 8K. 32K is the lowest for mpeg1. So if
    you're talking about using mpeg1 you're talking oranges.

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm


  17. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    Wes Newell wrote:

    > I'm not an MP3 buff. And I don't guess anyone I know is either as the 8K
    > rate seems to be acceptible to all that's listened to it. I loaded 5
    > really cheap 128MB mp3 players with a bunch of songs ripped right from
    > their own CD's at an 8K bitrate and they loved it.


    They either haven't heard anything other than AM radio all their lives, or
    they're prepared to put up with poor quality for portability!

    C.


  18. Re: Downloading Music to my P.C.

    If your limit is 150Mb/month then you won't be able to download much
    music, a typical mp3 file is 3-5Mb in size. Each time you request an
    html page it too uses some bandwidth.

    If you like electronic music you may try downloading tracked music, like
    mod or xm files. These are much smaller in size, typically 50-300Kb.
    Here are two archives:

    http://www.modarchive.org
    http://www.scenemusic.net/

    --
    Dawid Michalczyk
    http://www.comp.eonworks.com _Linux SysAdmin and Webmaster scripts_

+ Reply to Thread