2) eat at a 3 star restaurant. the next morning, take a shit. eat at McDonalds. the next morning, take a shit. it all ends up the same.
....
dude mc'ds and the like results in much more rank poo the next day, not to mention my stomach turning, this didn't start happening or i didn't start noticing until i began to cut that kind of food out of my eating pattern
A lot of people arguing back and forth on whether you can or can't tell in x scenario on x system or can sense it on a subconscious level.
This thread is about can you tell in a blind test on whatever fancy headphones, monitors, or whatever you have available? So to all the people saying they can hear a difference- take the test, and post your results when you get them and see if there is as huge a difference as you think and if you can even tell and get some real results that isn't just comparing two files on a website.
A lot of people arguing back and forth on whether you can or can't tell in x scenario on x system or can sense it on a subconscious level.
This thread is about can you tell in a blind test on whatever fancy headphones, monitors, or whatever you have available? So to all the people saying they can hear a difference- take the test, and post your results when you get them and see if there is as huge a difference as you think and if you can even tell and get some real results that isn't just comparing two files on a website.
And what is achieved with that? the confirmation that mp3 dont hurts?
Please do the test on a proper club system and decide than.
Before you draw false conclusions do a real world test.
And what is achieved with that? the confirmation that mp3 dont hurts?
Please do the test on a proper club system and decide than.
Before you draw false conclusions do a real world test.
i can hear a difference in the highs from WAV to mp3. They is more space on the WAVs because they are uncompressed....
I used to think I could not tell the difference but now i can tell.
he talks about mp3s around 6:40....but the whole video is very informative about high quality PA systems....most of the clubs here in Vegas use Funktion Ones or Fulcrums and sound amazing at 105db. the highs are so clean and clear. you dont get ringing in the ears and the systems just sound relaxed.
I wonder what he is smoking- he talks about "even .wav not being enough on a Funktion One". I mean really, what more does he want than pure lossless audio?
I wonder what he is smoking- he talks about "even .wav not being enough on a Funktion One". I mean really, what more does he want than pure lossless audio?
24 bit 96k, but i guess he prefers it in unlimited bits and unlimited samplerate. Thats pretty clear in subtext ;-)
i can hear a difference in the highs from WAV to mp3. They is more space on the WAVs because they are uncompressed....
I used to think I could not tell the difference but now i can tell.
he talks about mp3s around 6:40....but the whole video is very informative about high quality PA systems....most of the clubs here in Vegas use Funktion Ones or Fulcrums and sound amazing at 105db. the highs are so clean and clear. you dont get ringing in the ears and the systems just sound relaxed.
Mad props to Tony...he has the guts to put his money where his mouth is in a cuthroat business, won't create a bad sound system...I bet he can hear the difference between a lossless and a lossy tune being played on one of his systems.
Perhaps the most common bitrate for mp3 is sadly 128kbps which is that bad I can usually notice it without even hearing original, no matter what is the playback system. Best describe of low bitrate mp3 is that you can hear "pixels" in music. Better bitrates makes it harder to notice. I can yet hear 160kbps in some particular songs, but 192kbps tends to be already very difficult to spot without comparing to lossless source.
I still remember when my own song sounded so badly and tried hard to analyze stuff but at the end I realized it was because the site where I uploaded it, always decodes into 160kbps if it's higher than that. It was a surprise how much differences I was able to tell when my song was compressed into both 160kbps and 192kbps. It's not always that clear. For mp3, I always demand minimum 192kbps.
I really hate when some people converts mp3 stuff into flac or ape and then claim it's lossless...
Also, because of the wide use of mp3 in these days, young people are really desensitizing themselves when playing nothing else than just mp3 in their ipods. No wonder why people are not buying CDs, because they can't even notice the difference of mp3 and CD quality.
Fortunately some gadgets have started supporting lossless formats like flac.
__________________ "I'm totally opposed to all these expensive bullshit computers (sequencers). They can do whatever you want but not in the time you want. People have lost the essence of time. One said to me: "With this new computer I can create something in one or two minutes". This is an eternity. I can do that in a split second. But the split second doesn't come into account because the previous computer could do it in 10 minutes - so for them, 10 minutes to two minutes is really great progress!" - Vangelis
Right, which is why Tony's statement is a little strange. He's talking about for playback on Funktion One systems and .wavs not being enough.
well 24 bit makes allot of sense. huge dynamic range. i've heard the difference myself in music such as classical which can have a massive contrast of very quiet passages followed by very loud ones. ye can tell in the quiet parts. the very very low level stuff lacks resolution.. 24 bit however you don't get that problem.
24 bit 96k, but actually he prefers it in unlimited bits and unlimited samplerate. Thats pretty clear in subtext ;-)
i know a guy who does a pure analogue modular live PA and the sound quality is on another level. pure analogue sound is probably what he prefers. i know i like it.
i'm not downloading 500meg.. waste of time. you go for it
Done, took the test, and submitted results. I didn't expect to be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
It takes about 5 minutes to download, there are a lot of people in here claiming the difference is noticeable and they can easily tell- and I would be curious to hear if they are as good as they think.
I'm not saying there is no difference between .wav and .mp3 and you can't hear/feel something on a club system- but I'm willing to bet a lot of the people who think 320 mp3s are so horrid in here will fail this test and won't be able to tell the difference with any statistical significance.
So we can argue and talk about the merits all day, but mostapha put together a pretty comprehensive test and that's what this thread is about, so if you're not going to bother taking it then there is no point participating in the discussion in here, and that goes for everyone.
FYI there's a plugin that you can use REAL TIME to compare the original uncompressed audio (compressed as in; lossy compression, not limiting dynamics (though that's a result as well), so you can find out how much the MP3 or AAC version is going to be screwed up. That is.... on your nearfields or headphones. Sonnox Fraunhofer Pro-Codec Plug-in – Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits
As correctly noted, the more dynamics are obvious (on a big, well set up PA system in a club or stage) the more lossy compressed files drop out of the basket: It's pseudo acoustics to trick the human brain into thinking all the content is still there. It works, until there's a lot of air moved. So the translation of nearfields--->big club system works, until you screw it up using pseudo acoustic tricks ON YOURSELF.
So unless you're catering to the iPod market ONLY... don't use it.
Also... there is NO POINT IN USING MP3 IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT anymore.
NONE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson
"The notion that low quality playback or less sensitive hearing will cover up the lack of audio quality is a common rationalization that is dead wrong."
ponder that one for a while..
__________________ "You must have Chaos within you, to give Birth to a dancing Star" Friedrich Nietsche
For SALE: ATC SCM7 bookshelve passive monitors, Bryston 3B Power Amplifier, Emagic ATM8 & Unitor 8 midi interfaces (16 i/o through USB)
I would, but the download is so slow and erratic that it's near impossible to get.
Took me a few minutes and downloads at 1.4 mbps for me and just checked again and same thing- if you are having problems downloading it it must be on your end.
This would make a lot of difference. The statement "hardly anyone can tell the difference" isn't really controversial if the MP3s are saved at 320Kbps.... but if they're 128 or less that might be a different story.
Just about anyone can hear the difference between an MP3 and a Wav if the MP3 is ripped at its lowest rate.
:/
__________________
-------------------------
A snippet from my upcoming EP...
It's 320. The original discussion was about buying 320 CBR .mp3s from beatport/traxsource vs. paying the extra $1+ for lossless.
righto... I guess the question is, is that the most common bitrate these days for MP3s. I'd have guessed it was 128 still, where I think differences are more discernible. What's the point of testing all the way up at 320 if 128 is where it's at? Or are there already results established for that?
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
