1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Noticed how cheap USB sticks are now?

Discussion in 'Memory' started by mrk, 8 Oct 2009.

  1. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 86,912

    Location: South Coast

    I just bought a 16GB USB stick off the bay for £9.30 (free postage) from a UK seller. 32GB ones were not much more either.

    I never recalled them being this cheap before although I've not checked the bay for these things only highstreet stores and regular etailers.

    Damn they're cheap! Now I can have me entire music collection in the car instead of select albums :p
     
  2. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    Some places are overpriced and my mum was a victim -_-

    Although entire music collection on 16GB?

    I would only get 15 albums or so :p I've converted my music into 4096kbps, 1GB an album. :eek:
     
  3. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 86,912

    Location: South Coast

    I have a small collection as I'm quite picky with music and they are 320Kbps LAME encoded :p

    The rest of my stations are online streams which I get in the car too via line in from my 3G phone :D
     
  4. bledd

    Don

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 46,757

    Location: Parts Unknown

    overkill?

    that's bigger than WAV.


    remember you can still get 'fake' sticks and memory cards on the bay, flashed to think they're bigger than they are, data in the 'fake' section will be very unreliable.

    saying that, that's only a small amount of them, sony memory sticks are the worst for it
     
  5. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    Yeah I know it is and it isn't overkill when you hear the difference. :cool:

    It's insane how you can get 128GB sticks now. Only £200 a pop probably better getting a Portable-HD but still it's there. :p
     
  6. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,583

    Location: Bristol

    Don't get how it can be better than the uncompressed CD original... :confused:
     
  7. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 86,912

    Location: South Coast

    You can't hear the difference because there is no difference because it's not possible in any way to gain extra detail that never existed in the first place from the original CD (WAV format) :p
     
  8. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    Well don't knock it till you try it. I just have a crappy amp and I notice a good difference using that bit-rate.

    Sorry if I've managed to offend anyone. :p
     
  9. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 86,912

    Location: South Coast

    It's sonically impossible my friend! Your crappy amp is deceiving you :)



    It's very hard for me to tell the difference between 320Kbps LAME and the CD counterpart and I'm on a NAD C325BEE amp with matching equipment! (And I have excellent hearing!)

    It is however possible that the encoder you used coloured the sound to make it feel different to your ears if you're regularly listening to that same music I guess, it won't be more detailed at all, just have a different sound colour :p
     
    Last edited: 8 Oct 2009
  10. Simon42

    Hitman

    Joined: 11 Dec 2006

    Posts: 726

    You must have a lot better hearing than me :eek:
     
  11. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    It might have been because it encoded the audio signal into 96khz?

    I don't know and I'm all new to this I ripped the CD at lossless (which was 600MB) then converted it using foobar which was 400MB more. When you say it wassn't there before CD quality still has to be compressed a little surely as CD's are still quite small in capacity?

    Edit - argh my brain hurts there's no way I can really justify myself at all and maybe just playing a fools game :( Add me on msn mrk and I'll explain in full if you want? My e-mail is in my trust. I'll be home at around half 4 to accept the add if you do.
     
    Last edited: 8 Oct 2009
  12. NeoVo

    Hitman

    Joined: 2 Feb 2009

    Posts: 942

    They are indeed getting larger / cheaper.

    Its a shame their not any more reliable though :(.
     
  13. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,583

    Location: Bristol

    Eh? CDs have 44,000 16-bit samples per second. You re-encoding at 96KHz can't add anything, there is no extra data to be had. What does it do interpolate new samples between the existing ones? Can that make it sound better? I don't really see how.
     
  14. bledd

    Don

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 46,757

    Location: Parts Unknown

    if this was in the sound forum, you'd be dead by now :p
     
  15. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    Why do you get sound cards that output at 24-bit/192khz then if it doesn't add to sound quality at all?

    And probably bledd... :( :D

    That's the art of 'converting' surely to make it so it does output at a better bit-rate and audio signal.
     
  16. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,583

    Location: Bristol

    Because we might be working with higher quality sources. Artificially created sounds, digital samples of an analogue source etc... Your problem is that you're limited by the CD as a source. Adding more bits is pointless.
     
  17. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 86,912

    Location: South Coast


    The cards are outputting by hardware though to anticipate better input sources in that instance - the values are labelled in vista and win7 as such too to make things easier. The default will always be 44100 or 48000 for DVD but soundcard drivers will bypass Windows values usually.
     
  18. LeJosh

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Sep 2008

    Posts: 10,434

    Location: Edinburgh.

    Well I followed a guide on Head-Fi using foobar.

    I use a resampler as an Active DSP at 24bit/96khz which is the setting I have the soundcard at which says (studio quality). The added bit-rate I can't really justify without solid evidence which I don't have. Feel free to do the same using foobar and tell me if you have a better sound quality.

    :):):)

    Edit - It converted my lossless files to 24-bit apparently. I was supposed to add an asio profile but I havn't done that yet.
     
    Last edited: 8 Oct 2009
  19. EsaT

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 6 Jun 2008

    Posts: 9,122

    Location: Finland

    Also cheap flash memories often use very slow chips. (especially write)
     
  20. Bouton Aide

    Caporegime

    Joined: 9 Aug 2008

    Posts: 27,354

    Is this what you say to all the boys?