New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bigshot

 It doesn't apply if you're looking for very subtle differences, but if you are looking for clear differences, it's good enough. I don't sweat the little stuff. I'm looking for significant improvements. There are better uses for my time than worrying about things that I can barely hear in a rough comparison.
If it's difficult to go to all that trouble, just level match by ear and take your time about it. Then set up a blind test with a friend. A "close as dammit" test is better than no test at all. Everyone should do comparison tests of their equipment to find out what the differences are. Not many people do that, and that is a big reason audiophiles waste money on things that don't make a lick of difference.
I like to take pictures of people better than jets.
I took this with my iPhone 4. The new iPhone has an even better camera.  
 My media server is pushing two years worth of music. It's almost overrunning its 2TB drive as it is. In lossless, it would be very difficult to back up.
All cameras are good nowadays. Even the iPhone has a remarkably good camera.
 More likely the cable was shorted out.
I am discarding the lossless. Why do I need a better codec than audibly transparent? I can re-encode AAC files ten times and not get any degradation. If I was going to remix them and it was a 24 track master, maybe I might want more latitude. But AAC is just as good as any lossless for the purposes of listening to music.
Comedy is serious business. It should be left to professionals... like me!
I got a batch of 24/96 tracks and I am downsampling them to AAC. Sounds the same.
New Posts  All Forums: