Why the majority of your CDs sound horrible.
Jan 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM Post #151 of 217
Thanks much for that effort SeagramSeven. I also have driven myself crazy trying to find defects by looking at the standard waveform but until now have overlooked reviewing by spectral analysis. Thanks for the tutorial.
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM Post #152 of 217
Wow, toastmaster, www.songview.org is awesome. I think this will be huge and very popular because there are alot of people interested in this topic and not just at headfi.

Can't wait to start adding screen shots of songs.
280smile.gif
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 6:24 PM Post #154 of 217
Thanks for all the offers of help guys!

Just before things get rolling with Songview, I want to ask a few things.

One is what Esidarap mentioned: a logo. I finished the installation when I got home last night, so other than just BEING there, there's no content yet.

Secondly, as for how to contribute, I would like all of the waveforms to come from lossless files. I personally don't have a problem with MP3s, but I'd like the wave to be as uncompromised as possible. I was also thinking that for each entry, the date and who mastered it should be included.

Any other ideas?
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 6:36 PM Post #156 of 217
SeagramSeven, Thanks VERY much!!!! You were clear, concise, and extremely informative. Thanks for taking the time to help out.
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 6:37 PM Post #157 of 217
Oh, as for the logo. It should be:

135 X 135
transparent background
.png format
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM Post #160 of 217
I just had to share this gem from the ultrasone cd that was mentioned.

ultra.jpg


Track 2, it runs 1:02:1660 to 1:02:1680

Check out track 4 at 46 seconds if your interested.
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 7:16 PM Post #163 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Tell me what you guys think. Thanks!


I like it but find it a bit hard to read quickly. I like the ideas (like the wave shape) that you brought over from your Head-Fi logo thread. I saw those logos too and liked them.

I don't know how the readability could be fixed though. Simpler lettering? I liked it in the original because it was bigger but I think the small size calls for something narrower so there's more contrast between the letters
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top