Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 no but i liek supporting bands I like more than ticket sales. Someone have a crack at Test 5. One of them's a 128kbps sample, it shouldn't be too hard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 we tried running an ipod for break music instead of cd's. we had a lot of complaints and they said it sounded wishhy or something through the pa. So we put the cd's in the player and piped that out with no problem. I guess it depends on the amplification maybe. Ive heard many dj's using mp3's and some get complaints and others don't care. I can hardly tell as much on high bitrate versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xiwiwix1 Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 we tried running an ipod for break music instead of cd's. we had a lot of complaints and they said it sounded wishhy or something through the pa. So we put the cd's in the player and piped that out with no problem. I guess it depends on the amplification maybe. Ive heard many dj's using mp3's and some get complaints and others don't care. I can hardly tell as much on high bitrate versions. Any way you can post a clip with a band that uses cymbols, with singing, and guitars. No offence, and I think this is a cool thread but I think that's a crappy choice for "heavy" cymbols. The cymbals already sound crappy to begin with. It sounds like cheap, not very well made samples were used on that clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kitarist Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 well if i ever encode i encode to 320kbps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Any way you can post a clip with a band that uses cymbols, with singing, and guitars. No offence, and I think this is a cool thread but I think that's a crappy choice for "heavy" cymbols. The cymbals already sound crappy to begin with. It sounds like cheap, not very well made samples were used on that clip. I would use that roll eyes smiley here if I didn't hate that smug little bastard. Dude, why don't you just download Lame and do it yourself. I'll help you if you can't suss it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BAZGUITARMAN Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Is this thread really necessary? Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Can you PM me hte answers? Not enough people seemed ot have jumped to the challenge but I'm interested on how I faired in the two that I attempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Can you PM me hte answers? Not enough people seemed ot have jumped to the challenge but I'm interested on how I faired in the two that I attempted. Yeah man, I'll send one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 If you listen on garbage computer speakers or an iPod, it shouldn't be surprising if you can't tell the difference. Listening on a more transparent system will reveal lots of things you previously haven't heard, even if you've listened to the same thing 230932092 times over. Personally I like vinyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 I would participate, but a 30 meg file is a bit big... but I've done tests like this before, and I really have to listen to hear compression artifacts even at like 160kbps, though they can still be heard somewhat easily if you're A/Bing against the original CD. At the V0 preset, which is what I always encode my CDs into, I can't really pin down a difference. At 320cbr I imagine it's even cleaner but i think that's past the point of diminishing returns. I think my ears have been more conditioned to listen to the quality of the mix rather than perfect fidelity of the hihat or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 If you listen on garbage computer speakers or an iPod, it shouldn't be surprising if you can't tell the difference. Listening on a more transparent system will reveal lots of things you previously haven't heard, even if you've listened to the same thing 230932092 times over. Personally I like vinyl I'm not aiming this reply at you specifically but you bring up a point that I often see get touted around here that really gets on my tits. In a forum supposedly made up of music heads it amazes me that I seem to be one of the few people who has access to computers that have half decent audio interfaces, amp and speakers; and I mean HiFi amp and speakers or a studio monitor setup. WTF is up with that {censored}? I can dig that at work you may not have a very good setup in the office but c'mon people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 I would participate, but a 30 meg file is a bit big...but I've done tests like this before, and I really have to listen to hear compression artifacts even at like 160kbps, though they can still be heard somewhat easily if you're A/Bing against the original CD. At the V0 preset, which is what I always encode my CDs into, I can't really pin down a difference. At 320cbr I imagine it's even cleaner but i think that's past the point of diminishing returns. Tests 2, 4 & 5 are 15 meg but that's still prolly no good if you're on dial up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 I'm not surprised at the results. Cool. I wish more people would try and stop bitching about how hard it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elric Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Note to self: Stop enjoying your MP3's immediately or risk being ostracized on HCAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Cerastine Order Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 Some may say the same thing about starting a thread about five trillion sausage balls or whatever. http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1788849 pwnd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 last night, as i was dicking around with recording my amp tones, i imported an mp3 file into sonar and compared it to the original. the compression was visible on the waveforms, and audible as well. the only way converting to MP3 is going to cause a drastic change comared to CD audio is if the CD is not compressed. if the original is compressed, then MP3's of the original aren't going to sound terribly different. i didn't even bother to listen to the clips, because i don't care. i know from my personal experience that converting to MP3 changes things. it may be my encoding, but there is an audible difference that i verified by looking at the waveforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bikehorn Posted November 1, 2007 Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 I'm not aiming this reply at you specifically but you bring up a point that I often see get touted around here that really gets on my tits.In a forum supposedly made up of music heads it amazes me that I seem to be one of the few people who has access to computers that have half decent audio interfaces, amp and speakers; and I mean HiFi amp and speakers or a studio monitor setup.WTF is up with that {censored}?I can dig that at work you may not have a very good setup in the office but c'mon people... Ex-{censored}ing-actly. I have been waiting for this. [soapbox]I think everyone should have a good hi fi, but in particular it is my opinion that any half-serious musician who enjoys music must make at least some effort to have a high quality playback system. Seriously. You love [band]. You are a huge fan of [band] and have been since the first time you heard them. Don't you want to hear [band] as clearly and satisfyingly as possible? If so, why listen through an iPod, or one of those horrible plastic all in one "mini stereo" things everyone has these days? You would think that a musician's ear would be more discerning than average joe of the 'unwashed masses'. All I ever hear from musicians is meaningless blanket statements like "audiophiles are just crack-smoking monkeys willing to pay $2000 for a speaker cable". They just dismiss the need for clear audio reproduction altogether because they assume that to shoot for good sound quality requires you to buy frivolous things like $2000 speaker cables, yet justify other potentially frivolous things like having multiple high-dollar amps, a colourful pedal collection full of redundant pedals and a number of instruments. You can score all kinds of good audio gear for a good price, and there's tons of stuff used. As an example I recently saw a Craigslist ad by someone selling a NAD 3020 integrated amp for $120. Those things are almost unbeatable for sound quality at the price and probably even higher prices. They are a great entry audiophile component and can be modified for even higher performance, plus they have a phono preamp(a great one) so you can even listen to records if you're after real listening enjoyment(warning: this is only an opinion. Don't get your shorts in a knot if your opinion is that CDs sound better). I also saw an ad for a mid 90's pair of Mission 732 speakers for a similar price, I think maybe $130. Maybe another $50 for a CD player, or maybe you already have one, or a DVD player for that matter. So for approximately $300 you could assemble a pretty nice budget system that would just KILL any garbage home theater, computer speakers, iPod dock stereo or whatever other crap passes for home audio these days. If you can justify spending $300 on pedals, a guitar amp or another guitar, you can justify spending the same on a stereo setup. It is just stupid to voluntarily listen to really bad sound quality if you actually enjoy music. Hell, I didn't even pay that much. I went looking for 70's stuff for cheap. I got a nice Superscope receiver for $18, a pair of Wharfedale speakers for $7, an ancient Technics CD player for $30, and a Dual turntable for $90. Total: $165. Most people are shocked about the sound quality...which by no means is even that great compared to some affordable high end gear. Of course, there's no remote control and if you're one of those guys who turns the bass and treble up when you listen to your music(or put the graphic EQ in a smiley face), you'll have to train yourself not to do that and instead leave it flat. What's that you say? It doesn't sound as good if you don't? Just turn up the damn volume. When you start experiencing clear sound, you start noticing all sorts of things you thought weren't in the recording. You will also notice how badly mastered many new music releases are these days...massive compression and loudness EQing. Ugh.[/soapbox] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 1, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 1, 2007 i didn't even bother to listen to the clips, because i don't care. i know from my personal experience that converting to MP3 changes things. it may be my encoding, No {censored}? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Osram Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 PM me the results too! I must know!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megadeth Man Posted November 2, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 Yeah man, that's my pretty much my take. It doesn't take big dough to get a setup that owns a pair of poxy PC speakers. You don't have to be some obsessed audiophile to enjoy your music in good quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 I'm with bikehorn. If you ever see awesome deals on speakers or receivers/amps let me know. I have pretty nice old Sansui with a phono preamp (required) that sounds great... my speakers are crap though that I just found lying aroudn that work and handle the right amount of power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members danbronson Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 Here's my guess for test 1. I haven't read anything else in the post yet, so if you gave it away and I'm right, I'm not cheating! Wav, MP3 200-240, MP3 320 I'm probably wrong though. They're so damn close to the same sound I can't tell if my ears are just playing tricks on me! EDIT: Wait! I'm listening again and I definitely feel the first is an MP3. Maybe 200-240, Wav, 320...I don't know what to think anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bond Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 last night, as i was dicking around with recording my amp tones, i imported an mp3 file into sonar and compared it to the original. the compression was visible on the waveforms, and audible as well. i know from my personal experience that converting to MP3 changes things. it may be my encoding, but there is an audible difference that i verified by looking at the waveforms. do you even understand the point in encoding audio? as for the tests, I really was unable to tell the the difference, but I'd say maybe 200kbs in the middle for the first test. Any artifacting really only occurs under 192kbs, I'll try some of the other tests later. But maybe more of these will stop all the stupid comments like, "I've downloaded the songs in 192khz, but won't make an opinion on the music until I've listened to it from a cd" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Myxolidian Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 In test 1, I hear the 1st and 3rd as MP3 and the 2nd as wave. So what's the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted November 2, 2007 Members Share Posted November 2, 2007 Hell, I didn't even pay that much. I went looking for 70's stuff for cheap. I got a nice Superscope receiver for $18, a pair of Wharfedale speakers for $7, an ancient Technics CD player for $30, and a Dual turntable for $90. Total: $165. Most people are shocked about the sound quality...which by no means is even that great compared to some affordable high end gear. Of course, there's no remote control and if you're one of those guys who turns the bass and treble up when you listen to your music(or put the graphic EQ in a smiley face), you'll have to train yourself not to do that and instead leave it flat. What's that you say? It doesn't sound as good if you don't? Just turn up the damn volume. Meh... I turn up my bass a bit, because I like how it sounds better. Who decided that the mastering engineer's knows how I like my music more than I do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.