Can you enjoy lossy (compressed) music through your favorite headphones?
Jun 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM Post #211 of 234
*** these threads are boring. The only real use for lossless digital storages ripped from CDs is for conversion purposes or backup.
Otherwise use the CD, or use something that sounds damn close for a small fraction of the storage space..
Digital rips of vinyl are stupid.
 
Jun 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM Post #212 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif
wow three x £60 is such a vast sum of money. Vast.


It's not just cost that is the matter it has to do with convenience of having my complete collection on one HDD instead of spanned across multiple HDDs.
If it was because I am a cheap bastage then I wouldn't have put a 500GB HDD in my PS3. I certainly didn't need a 500GB HDD in my PS3. I did it just because I could.

Anyway, according to the poll results the overall majority enjoy MP3 so you people who don't are just being anal IMO.
 
Jun 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM Post #213 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What's going on with you, dude? The things that you are assuming are only in your own experience. You're assuming that if you don't hear a difference, then nobody should hear a difference and this is crossing the line to absurdity. I really don't care if you hear a difference or not. But you can not tell people what they have heard or what they have experienced, because you can only have your own experience...and yours is apparently limited.

Now I'll tell you something about your DBTs. People send me files to be mastered in mp3 format and obviously, no professional mastering engineer will master an mp3 file. Guess why, genius! When I ask these people to send the files again in WAV or AIFF format, they'll transfer the mp3 to a WAV and then send it back to me. When I tell them that it's same file, they'll argue with me exactly as you are and try to convince me that there's no difference and that mp3 is a great format and the transfer from mp3 to WAV is fine. So, this is my test. I can hear the difference because it's required for me to do my work as a mastering engineer. My ears have to be able to detect subtle nuances and this is something that is achieved through experience over time.


Most people are not mastering engineers. It's not just me that fails to hear the difference either. The *majority* fail to be able tell any difference. There are many articles you can look up that will tell you the exact same thing I have told you. Saying you can't enjoy a 256KB/S OR 320KB/S is complete BS and nothing more than being elitist. I can enjoy music even from a ****ty transistor radio if i like the music.
 
Jun 27, 2009 at 4:24 PM Post #215 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I can enjoy music even from a ****ty transistor radio if i like the music.


I smiled when I read that, because it triggered a memory of my first portable audio device. It was around 1971; I was ten years old. It was a Sony portable transisitor radio, a little bit bigger than a pack of cigarettes, and I thought it was the coolest single object on earth. The "headphone" was one of those old-fashioned mono earplugs.

I would lie in the dark in my room at night, listening to AM radio (The Moooost Muuuusic, W-A-BEEE-CEEEE) thinking how great it sounded.

It's all relative.
 
Jun 27, 2009 at 5:48 PM Post #216 of 234
Yea, I even had one of those crystal radio sets when I was a kid and thought it was great. I had my Dad build it for me though because I was too lazy to do it myself.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jun 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM Post #218 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Most people are not mastering engineers. It's not just me that fails to hear the difference either. The *majority* fail to be able tell any difference. There are many articles you can look up that will tell you the exact same thing I have told you. Saying you can't enjoy a 256KB/S OR 320KB/S is complete BS and nothing more than being elitist. I can enjoy music even from a ****ty transistor radio if i like the music.


Our argument was if there is a difference between CD quality formats and mp3s.
Read my post again, I didn't say anything about the enjoyment of music in mp3 format.
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM Post #219 of 234
The main reason for Lossless is archiving, or future use. It is used to back up CD's digitally, due to the fact that nothing is lost sonically, or those who believe something more efficient than mp3 will come along. This is so when a new format becomes popular, they can just transcode from FLAC or ALAC or WAV or whatever, into the new format, instead of having to replace everything.

Most/Almost All people can not tell the difference between 320 cbr or LAME V0 vbr or Flac/Lossless.
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM Post #220 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by K3cT /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

The difference is there but it's pretty subtle


you're saying that you can hardly hear a diff between these 2 files?
eek.gif


the hihat sounds wooshy and completely mangled in 128kbit at 0:06..

PS: they another cool test : Can you hear THIS? Musicians high frequency hearing test | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

I can't hear 18Khz, in bit-perfect KS...
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM Post #221 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Our argument was if there is a difference between CD quality formats and mp3s.
Read my post again, I didn't say anything about the enjoyment of music in mp3 format.


Of course there is a difference. The argument is; is it audible? Not to my ears or the friend I tested with ABX DBT. Nor either to probably 99% of the population. Disclaimer:that's an educated guess at best.
ksc75smile.gif
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 5:23 PM Post #222 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleivonen /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Most/Almost All people can not tell the difference between 320 cbr or LAME V0 vbr or Flac/Lossless.


The poll posted asked if you can you enjoy lossy format and not should we use lossless for archival purposes. Some say they can't enjoy even high bit rate lossy because they say they can hear the difference. I don't beleive them. This is a perfect case for Mythbusters.
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM Post #223 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif
you're saying that you can hardly hear a diff between these 2 files?
eek.gif


the hihat sounds wooshy and completely mangled in 128kbit at 0:06..

PS: they another cool test : Can you hear THIS? Musicians high frequency hearing test | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

I can't hear 18Khz, in bit-perfect KS...


But that test is comparing 128kb/s to 320kb/s. The discussion is supposed to b 320kb/s compared to lossless.
 
Jun 28, 2009 at 8:45 PM Post #224 of 234
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Of course there is a difference. The argument is; is it audible? :


YES, there is a difference between WAV 16/44 and the mp3 320kb/s. And YES, is audible!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top