On Tue, 26 May 2009 08:23:02 -0400, snowy@weather.net wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 2009 15:30:50 +1000, Josh <jknight_64@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for Treviso (and others that I haven't yet caught up with).
>>However, I still seem to have a problem. By the look of the headers
>>all tracks seemed complete, but there was a problem with 6 and 8.
>>Track six showed as exactly 6Mb and track 7 as exactly 7 Mb, and were
>>both truncated. The repost of these tracks seems in fact to be tracks
>>7 and 9. But maybe I'm losing it because I noticed Amahl has said that
>>all tracks are now complete. lol
>This is a good occasion to further my computer education.
>When I got Amahl's message I was a bit surprised: as you put it all
>tracks seemed complete.
>Nevertheless I reposted the two tracks and, lo and behold, the
>reposted tracks were larger in size.
>Maybe if I explain briefly my operations, you can figure it out.
>I ripped the LP and prepared the .wav tracks for the burning of a CD.
>When I decided to post the LP, I converted the .wav files to .mp3 via
>the Roxio Sound Editor, and then I posted the .mp3 tracks without any
>visible incidents.
>As usual I checked via Agent if my post appeared and then I deleted
>the .mp3 files.
>When I saw Amahl's messages I still had the .wav files (even though I
>had burned the CD), and these are the two files that once again were
>converted to .mp3 and reposted, this time not truncated.
>
>So I guess the problem originated with the prior conversion to .mp3
>before the original post???
>Anyway if any of your downloaded files are truncated, let me know:
>this time however I'll have to use my CD since the .wav files have
>also been deleted.
>It might be easier if you could identify the tracks by name.
>It is possible that the track numbers have been changed since for my
>CDs I often do some editing, for instance skipping a non-treble track
>:-)
>And by the way, these posted tracks make up only half of that CD. I
>added all the treble tracks from the two other Treviso LPs I have.
Hi Snowy
Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure not getting any younger, and it
doesn't take much to confuse me lately. But....if you look at your
original post in Agent, you'll see that track 7 is 7,131,048 bytes,
and the repost of track 6 is also 7,131,048 bytes. And track nine of
the original post is 9,308,616 bytes and the repost of track 8 is also
9,308,616 bytes. I haven't yet listened to any of the tracks (well,
not properly) but this can't be a coincidence surely. Am I making any
sense at all or am I missing something?
|
|