Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #361
How do you mean?
-
-
may get a lot of flac for saying this but
the entire digital spectrum of music is really inferior to what it used to be.
sacrificing warmth for clarity is a sin!
-
yeah lets go back to phonographs
-
mediumless analogue format would be cool.
like a cassette but only invisible.
-
Brilliant
Lets make invisible LPs too!
-
I've been wondering if just because you can't hear certain frequencies, that means they don't affect you still. So if we can't perceive 30kHz tones as sound, we're still feeling it. So there might be a point to it. It probably needs to be studied more.
-
I think I read somewhere that frequencies above your range of hearing still affect the quality of the music in that spectrum
good article on it here:
http://recordinghacks.com/articles/t...-beyond-20khz/
-
I've used those Earthworks QTC microphones mentioned in that article before as room mics. They have a flat response up to 40kHz and they sound really great. I wonder if it's those extra tones? That was a good article, thanks for posting.
-
what so you're taking this as fact? The conventional view among audio engineers is that regular hearing for adults is under 20khz. That man's view is on the fringe more or less, to keep in mind.
-
Uh, no? I'm taking it as an interesting read, not a fact, keep on assuming thank you
-
Also, Engineer =/= Audiologist. There's not much difference between an engineer and a computer tech.
-
Except that not everyone has or can afford hard drives that big.
-
This is already all well-established shit. Infrasound matters because you can physically feel it and it impacts speaker movement drastically (changing what you do here), ultrasound audibility has never been demonstrated without exploiting bone conductance so it has no practical application in music.
-
Just did the ABX Comparator on Foobar 2000 with a Tool song (only album I had on both FLAC and V0) and to me, it sounds absolutely no different.
I have some mid grade Sennheiser headphones and some "high fidelity" sound card.
-
External ones aren't that expensive, like around 100 euro or something.
-
I only have a 500GB HDD and I have all the albums I want in FLAC, and I still have a comfortable amount of space left.
-
got a 2TB one for £70
-
I don't understand all the whining about flac and other audiophile bullshit. Hell, I can't hear the difference between 128 kb/s and 320 kb/s MP3.
-
it's not whining, it's a judgement.
-
Then I'm sorry, but you're deaf.
-
There is a major difference between those two. It is one even I notice, and I don't even mind bad audio.
-
Actually that one is pretty obvious. I can hear the difference on $15 JVC earbuds.
-
Then you're terrible
-
I'm dead serious, and my hearing is fine. I do produce music and work with mixing and stuff. I use some cheap-ish headphones though.
I took this test: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/...-test-128-320/
And I literally can't hear a single difference between the two. They both sound just fine to me. It is just arrogant to completely denounce lower bitrates, or mp3's at all. Why do you have to give a shit about what frequencies you can or can't hear when the frequency range of a human ear isn't that great anyway? Some people act like 128 kb/s is like listening to music on a Popstation.
I'm almost tempted to release all my future music in 128 kb/s and disregard any complaints about it because of this bullshit.
-
How can you not hear the difference between 128 and 320 kb/s? Get your ears checked m8
-
Just because you produce music and work with mixing doesn't mean you're right. I can hear a pretty huge difference between the two
-
I listen to only 5kbps, any higher and you're an arrogant son of a bitch!
-
kbps? AK'z, you should only listen to 5 bps
-
You may as well not even bother, 10 pages since the OP and nobody has changed their opinions. Mentioning you can't hear the difference between flac and x-format/x-bitrate just has people think you're some kind of plebeian.
-
Jesus christ...
what is your name so I can know to never hire you for mixing?
-
I think you're being a bit bitter about the whole thing
if you can't hear the difference that's fine but you were the one being arrogant by saying that everyone else was just lying about it
-
I haven't accused anyone of lying and I wholehearitly believe that everyone who says it sounds better believes that there's a difference. I just think people are experiencing a placebo.
-
mp3s aren't very archivable since they're an inaccurate compression of the original source.
It may sound good, I enjoy them, but they're still not what the audio engineer intended you to hear. I'm not interested in the "audiology" side of the arguement because mp3s are 44khz anyway.
-
I'm listening to the 24bit FLAC of Peter Gabriel's So for the first time. Have to say, it's the best I've ever heard this album sound. Used to listen to only the 320 and vinyl I had. This blows both out of the water, wow.
-
24bit FLAC is kind of pointless unless you have a really quality set up. I personally don't notice much difference so I don't think the extra storage needed makes it worth aside from archival purposes.
-
My DAC is decent not extraordinary, my headphones are very accurate even though I'm planning on getting new ones, they're mid-range sennheisers.
-
Have you listened to the new my bloody valentine record in 24bit?
-
tbh, I rarely listen to things in 24bit because it is very excessive but I may just do that.
For those wondering how excessive... it's a gigabyte an album.
-
yeah, m b v is ~1.5GB
Edited:
my transcode to Level 8 FLAC only took of half a gig of it too.
-
Because between artifacting and data loss stuff in the audible range is added or removed in a way humans can hear. Your hearing is apparently just worse than some 70 year old metal bassists'.
5 bits? In my day we had 3!
Friendly x 1
Informative x 1
Disagree x 1
Dumb x 5
Agree x 1
Funny x 2