Forums » Off-Topic
i dont care about super high fidelity audio, my hearing ain't worth a shit anyway. i can tell the difference though between cd quality and when i rip it to ultra low bitrate space saving mp3
The thing about music is that it communicates its message through feelings, and not conceptualized thought. If you actually were able to consciously tell the difference between 'high' quality and 'low' quality, you would be a musical genius, and probably able to reproduce music by writing equations for the sound waves. Instead, most of it seems to be handled subconsciously. That being said, it's the mood that a song leaves you with that counts, not the actual data used to reproduce it. If someone feels better listening to more realistically rendered music, then more power to 'em.
Personally, I like cheaper quality mp3's. The sound waves they use to mimic real instruments have their own hyper-intensive rhythm that I find extremely pleasing. If you want to see what I mean, and you have a program for editing sound, take a random song with a relatively low size, and half the speed a few times. You'll notice a sort of fluttering in the notes that's a telltale sign of computer generation. I've tried it with recordings of my own voice, and it's not there, even at 1/256th of the recorded speed. So...
Personally, I like cheaper quality mp3's. The sound waves they use to mimic real instruments have their own hyper-intensive rhythm that I find extremely pleasing. If you want to see what I mean, and you have a program for editing sound, take a random song with a relatively low size, and half the speed a few times. You'll notice a sort of fluttering in the notes that's a telltale sign of computer generation. I've tried it with recordings of my own voice, and it's not there, even at 1/256th of the recorded speed. So...
Mynt, that's retarded. Shut up.
Bryce: Your comments about FM broadcasting vs. digital audio/internet radio are
correct when considering current practices in broadcasting. If we could go back in time a bit, it would be completely false. Years ago FM broadcasters discovered that they could attract more listeners if thier programming sounded "louder." Using devices like "peak limiters" "leveling amplifiers" and "compressors" they could increase the volume of low level music, lower the level of loud music, reduce the dynamic range overall. This had the effect of increasing what they call "apparent loudness."
Unfortunately it also sounds like shit. So, "back in the day" FM radio would kick digital audio's ass. It still could if those audio tricks were eliminated.
correct when considering current practices in broadcasting. If we could go back in time a bit, it would be completely false. Years ago FM broadcasters discovered that they could attract more listeners if thier programming sounded "louder." Using devices like "peak limiters" "leveling amplifiers" and "compressors" they could increase the volume of low level music, lower the level of loud music, reduce the dynamic range overall. This had the effect of increasing what they call "apparent loudness."
Unfortunately it also sounds like shit. So, "back in the day" FM radio would kick digital audio's ass. It still could if those audio tricks were eliminated.
Who?Me?: Yes, I can tell the difference between mp3 and aiff most of the time. It
requires that the sample recording(s) be of the same song as a rule. If the song is one I have never heard it is difficult to tell if the "distortion" I hear is due to sampling or
quantizing errors or if it is an "effect" done by the artist or producer. I can usually tell the difference between aiff (CD) and SuperAudio CDs as well.
requires that the sample recording(s) be of the same song as a rule. If the song is one I have never heard it is difficult to tell if the "distortion" I hear is due to sampling or
quantizing errors or if it is an "effect" done by the artist or producer. I can usually tell the difference between aiff (CD) and SuperAudio CDs as well.