or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bigshot

Would you say that knowing how WAV and FLAC actually work might help? Like for instance that FLAC doesn't actually "chop up" the sound but simply converts it back to the exact same file as the WAV before it plays?
OH! WAIT A MINUTE!   The two players are DIFFERENT COLORS?! Maybe you just prefer RED, not wav!
Personally, I don't see any more point to comparing things that are obviously different than I do comparing things that clearly sound the same. It's more interesting to determine the line where audible transparency begins. But I've already done a test like that, and I know pretty much where the line is.
 And if you lose one of them in the seat cushions on your couch, your decision is simple!
I started one a long time ago. I should revive it.
Now you have me puzzled. Have you actually conducted a double blind test to determine if there is an actual difference or are you just listening to music and making up words to describe your subjective impressions?
I like the name Eargasm! It sounds messy!
Yes, and AAC is a notch better than MP3 in most cases.
I do too when I am listening to enjoy music. But if I am listening to sound quality, it's most useful to set the two sounds side by side and switch between them to instantly compare.
Genre makes no difference... it's types of sound. I've found complex masses of sounds are the hardest to compress... audience applause, certain textures of massed strings. Also pure high tones like flutes. It really doesn't matter if the recording is stereo or mono, digital or analogue, certain types of sounds will cause more problems than others. I have one track from the 1950s that is extremely hard to compress without artifacting. It will clearly reveal artifacts all...
New Posts  All Forums: