THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Powerslave on February 07, 2008, 12:08:22 PM
-
Yes, I do realize that 128kbps mp3's are shit, that's why I'm only talking about the better ripped or converted mp3 files. I have this one FLAC version of a song that sounds literally identical to it's mp3 version. So what's the point in having your entire music library in FLAC, consuming up all those gigabytes?
-
only when i blast my music in my car
when it's in my ears for my mp3 player, i listen to 192 because i don't listen to loud music that close
-
I cant either, then again im not an audiophile. I suspect audiophiles will continue setting the standard in shit I dont care about.
-
Well seeing as I now have a pretty good speaker and soundcard setup, I did a test and there is no audible difference to the human ear.
-
no no no, a good speaker and soundcard setup doesnt even bring you close to an audiophile, they have shit I cant pronounce modulate the gigawatz of the whozits in the dimension of audio discombobulation
-
oh my god this file is approximately 0.000021khz and 3kbps lower than my minimum requirements I'm missing out on this song's experience it's worthless now :(
-
WORTHLESSSSSSS
-
I only notice when they're played through my truck's stereo. and usually it's a volume and clarity difference on background instruments and whatnot.
-
the only thing ive ever noticed with compressed audio is between 128 bitrate and 160 bitrate
-
I have created a compression format called HP3. It uses a compression algorithm which stores bits in the dreamlands. There's a slight issue where decoding it can bring through...other...elder...things...but that rarely happens. not enough to prevent us from going to market anyway.
We're calling our player I'celoPod
edit: this is offically the geekiest thing i've typed today
-
I can easily tell the difference.
It also depends on the piece of music and your system.
-
I have created a compression format called HP3. It uses a compression algorithm which stores bits in the dreamlands. There's a slight issue where decoding it can bring through...other...elder...things...but that rarely happens. not enough to prevent us from going to market anyway.
We're calling our player I'celoPod
edit: this is offically the geekiest thing i've typed today
I <3!
-
I can easily tell the difference.
It also depends on the piece of music and your system.
post me an example of whatever piece of music you're talking about with a FLAC and MP3(well converted) version and I'll test it out.
-
I can easily tell the difference.
It also depends on the piece of music and your system.
post me an example of whatever piece of music you're talking about with a FLAC and MP3(well converted) version and I'll test it out.
heh thats a tall order considering I am at the office....
But to provide more detail - you mostly hear it in higher pitched sounds/instruments. The outer edges of a highhat wav-form can suddenly sound more staticy than smooth in an MP3.
Classical music listers likely notice more.
-
i'm ripping a piece of Dizzy Gillespie's for your examination
-
^thanks eric.
-
i'm ripping a piece of Dizzy Gillespie's for your examination
That should be a great example.
-
192kbps or bust
-
Dizzie Gillespie - Mas Que Nada
Album: Swing Low, Sweet Cadillac (a lesser work but the only one i had here on CD)
I chose this because lots of highs and some good lows, but you won't really notice any loss of the lower frequencies unless you decide to blast this quite loud.
Flac
http://www.wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.flac
mp3 encoder 1.34 320kbps
http://www.wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.mp3
mp3 encoder 1.34 192kbps
http://wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20192kbps-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.mp3
-
Yes, I do realize that 128kbps mp3's are shit, that's why I'm only talking about the better ripped or converted mp3 files. I have this one FLAC version of a song that sounds literally identical to it's mp3 version. So what's the point in having your entire music library in FLAC, consuming up all those gigabytes?
It depends how the music is mixed. In order to benefit from FLAC or the like, it has to have a lot of highs and lows in it. If it has a lot of (or if it is ALL) highs (as is often for shitty music today, because it makes it louder), you are not getting the full scale, and thus you won't gain much benefit from listening to it uncompressed. For things like classical music, many electronic musics, and "quieter" pop/rock (singery songwritery stuff, etc), you'll get the benefit, but only if you are listening loudly/closely enough.
Personally, I think people just like being leetheads about it. My optimal mp3 format is 256k vbr.
-
Dizzie Gillespie - Mas Que Nada
Album: Swing Low, Sweet Cadillac (a lesser work but the only one i had here on CD)
I chose this because lots of highs and some good lows, but you won't really notice any loss of the lower frequencies unless you decide to blast this quite loud.
Flac
http://www.wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.flac
mp3 encoder 1.34 320kbps
http://www.wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.mp3
mp3 encoder 1.34 192kbps
http://wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/dizzytest/02%20-%20Dizzy%20Gillespie%20192kbps-%20Mas%20Que%20Nada.mp3
I listened to the FLAC and the 320kbps ones and................yup no difference at all. It didn't help that the song has a constant hiss on the background. But the way the high notes of the trumpet and low notes of the bass guitar came out were indistinguishable from eachother from both files.
-
I'm listening to Adagio for Strings on full volume and it's amazing
-
Erich Kunzel's Batman Theme is so fucking awesome, it has all the elements you look for in a test :rock
-
FLACs take up more hard drive space. :P
(http://i28.tinypic.com/6hjqma.gif)
GARBAGE DAY!
-
haha time to take out the garbage known as FLAC from our hard drives :punch