Photo And Mp3 Help


daclassicgamingmaster

It Is Your Birthday.
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
8,168
Age
36
Location
ATL
Website
krispf3.blogspot.com
well, now that im pretty saavy with games, time to move on to the other features the gp32 has to offer. Movies im not too interested in, but im sure the time will come when im gonna wanna know more about that.

for now, how (and what programs if necessary), do i dsplay photos on the gp32? i have a canon powershot s400.

Also, how can I use the mp3 player option? what rogram is best, and of course, about how many average length songs can be fit onto a 128mb smc?

thanks guys :)
 
Ever heard of searching the board?

How about just trying a few mp3 players and pic viewers from EDs file archive and check what fits you best?

It can`t be that hard to read some readmes and put some mp3s in the mp3 directory on your smc...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shinneri posted on Sep 6 2005 at 06:42 PM said:
For WMA use omega5's MP3_WMA player (sadly not BLU+ compatible). For OGG, use Svorbis.

EDIT: Even better, try GPFM. It plays WMA and has an image viewer in it :)
http://www.gp32x.de/cgi-bin/cfiles.cgi?0,0,0,0,7,472
but thats a launcher. dont i already have a launcher on my gp32?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to stick to MP3s then encode at 22Khz 80Kbs rather than 44Khz 128Kbs You'll save space and the end result will sound as good if not better then the larger 128Kbs files.

On my mp3 player I encode files at either 44/192-256 variable or 22/80 and the difference between them quality wise is tiny. So much so that I tend to use 22/80 all the time now to save space.
 
Yeah, they will sure sound better :huh: :blink:

I`m staying with 128kb, as that`s the usual rate my mp3s are encoded in.
 
Quiest posted on Sep 7 2005 at 09:43 AM said:
Yeah, they will sure sound better :huh: :blink:

I`m staying with 128kb, as that`s the usual rate my mp3s are encoded in.

know a lot about sound do you?

Unless you have some serious UBER system most if not all of the top 22Khz of you 44Khz is going to not even get played and if it does your ears are not going to notice much difference.

I'd rather have crisp 22Khz 80Kbs that fluffy 44Khz 128Kbits any time.

You doubt me? try it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BaDToaD posted on Sep 7 2005 at 10:56 AM said:
Quiest posted on Sep 7 2005 at 09:43 AM said:
Yeah, they will sure sound better :huh: :blink:

I`m staying with 128kb, as that`s the usual rate my mp3s are encoded in.

know a lot about sound do you?

Unless you have some serious UBER system most if not all of the top 22Khz of you 44Khz is going to not even get played and if it does your ears are not going to notice much difference.

I'd rather have crisp 22Khz 80Kbs that fluffy 44Khz 128Kbits any time.

You doubt me? try it.
I severely doubt you; in fact, I know you're incorrect as far as my personal experience goes. I have an utterly terrible sound system (6 year-old Zodiac 2-pc) and the audio format you suggested using is horrendous. This is where I found codecs to provide general transparency when I did blind testing about 1 year ago:

Ogg Vorbis: 160kbps
MP3 (Lame): 224kbps
MP3 (Fraunhoffer): Never (see WMA)
AAC (Nero): 112kbps
AAC (FAAC): 160kbps
WMA 8.0: Never (none of the bitrates, all the way up to the maximum, provided audible transparency)

And don't even get into Hz rate -- 44,100 is the only one listenable. Also, if you are citing the dropoff rate for human hearing as your 22kHz vs. 44kHz statement, 22kHz is 11.25kHz for each channel of the stereo stream (and 44kHz is 22.05kHz for each channel). An average person at age 21 can hear sounds up to about 14.5kHz easily, thus making 11kHz/ea.ch. quite abysmal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a load of tripe.

Any doubters out there just try it. I'm not going to argue the point with someone who talks out of their arse.

Next you'll be telling me MP2 isn't a better sound than MP3
 
BaDToaD posted on Sep 7 2005 at 04:21 PM said:
What a load of tripe.

Any doubters out there just try it. I'm not going to argue the point with someone who talks out of their arse.

Next you'll be telling me MP2 isn't a better sound than MP3
Do you even know what computer audio is? I suggest you start reading instead of refuting fact. MP3 IS better than MP2, it's a natural progression of the MPEG standard. That comment just shows your stupidity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a help forum. I offered some advice and you trash it without even trying it. To call 22/80 horrendous compared to 44/128 is bloody stupid.

You also come on here and pretend to be an audiophile and spout a few bit rates. Yet you haven't even mentioned MPC,FLAC or APE but appear to be after CD quality?

As for doubting MP2s sound compared to MP3 that shows your lack of understanding of Audio standards. MP2 is generally regarded by those in the know to have a better sound quality than MP3. MP3 on the other hand has better compression. MP3s are a later technology than CDs but are they better?

I offer you a simple challenge.

Convert a track to 44/128 and another to 22/80 and tell me the result. I personally prefer 22/80, especially on busy tracks but that may just be me. At the very least you'll have to admit the 22/80 sound is close to the 44/128 because if you don't and people try for themselves you're going to look like a right chump aren't you :)
 
BaDToaD posted on Sep 8 2005 at 02:39 AM said:
This is a help forum. I offered some advice and you trash it without even trying it. To call 22/80 horrendous compared to 44/128 is bloody stupid.

You also come on here and pretend to be an audiophile and spout a few bit rates. Yet you haven't even mentioned MPC,FLAC or APE but appear to be after CD quality?

As for doubting MP2s sound compared to MP3 that shows your lack of understanding of Audio standards. MP2 is generally regarded by those in the know to have a better sound quality than MP3. MP3 on the other hand has better compression. MP3s are a later technology than CDs but are they better?

I offer you a simple challenge.

Convert a track to 44/128 and another to 22/80 and tell me the result. I personally prefer 22/80, especially on busy tracks but that may just be me. At the very least you'll have to admit the 22/80 sound is close to the 44/128 because if you don't and people try for themselves you're going to look like a right chump aren't you :)
But I already have tried all those different audio formats, such as 22kHz/80kbps, and I only listed the ones that I found to be acceptable. And of course I know what Musepack is -- I just don't use it in favor of more popular codecs. Also, this conversation is about lossy audio bitrates, and FLAC and APE are not lossy.

MP3s do sound better at popular bitrates than MP2s do. However, since MP2 uses a much simpler psychoacoustic model than MP3, it is not as aggressive on the audio. This can, possibly give you better sounding audio on some samples at very high bitrates (224kbps and up), but NEVER lower.

MP3 is lossy compression, CDDA is not. That comparison is just assinine.

You simply can't argue with me. You have no idea what you're talking about. Other people may like your 22/80 suggestion because they don't have as high of standards as I do, but you can't try to tell me what I like. You need to hang out somewhere else like HydrogenAudio for a while and start to understand how psychoacoustic models and different audio codecs work, because you clearly don't at this moment. Not to mention that you have a terrible tin-ear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look I'm not going to argue with you. This is topic about low quality MP3s etc on the GP32 not some high class piece of kit. No one in their right mind would carry 224Kbs mp3s on the GP32 a. because they would only be able to carry about 2 albums at most and b. because the GP32 wouldn't do it justice.

I would still be interested if you took up my challenge and posted your thoughts on here.

But do bear in mind we are talking about GP32 audio and most peoples low quality headphones not some UBER kit.

PS I have such terrible tin ear that I recently bought a pair of ATH-M40 headphones and a headphone amplifier because my 450 watt Yamaha 5.1 system just didn't cut the mustard sonically when it came to listening to my music collection. :p

I think we'll just have to agree to differ :)
 
arite both of you chill out. I asked a question, and followed it up with some problems i was having. In case you have forgot the task at hand, I have found that when i convert a song to mp3, it's readable on that program. When I download the codecs for ogg and wmv v8, nothing else works on the gp32.

Now does anyone know wtf the problem is?
 
Back
Top