FLAC and other such lossless options for the effing win.
Oh, and www.hydrogenaudio.org - excellent digital audio discussions, plenty to learn re: double blind listening tests, psychoacoustic models and so much more.
Oh, kids are dumb.
Jun-19-2009 05:34
RapidFire
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: toronto
for audiophiles on here, would you say that 192 is a decent bit rate? or is anything under 320 unaccaptable? i tend to find most tracks in the 192 + zone tend to sound good enough. and anything under that...the difference is far too noticable
Jun-19-2009 05:58
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by RapidFire
for audiophiles on here, would you say that 192 is a decent bit rate? or is anything under 320 unaccaptable? i tend to find most tracks in the 192 + zone tend to sound good enough. and anything under that...the difference is far too noticable
Same with me. It depends on the kind of music, too. I find MP3 distortions are more noticeable in music with a really full spectrum, which includes most dance music. Acoustic stuff that generally has softer highs and bass suffers less.
Jun-19-2009 06:03
Darkarbiter
Psysnob
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
192 pretty much minimum (i.e. if I was short on time, and there was a mix I was gonna dl that had any option, and there was a good chance it's gonna be dodgey). Although if you can't do better than 128 then that's that, but 128 will get listened to a lot less.
320 you get a fair bit of that extra fatness and clarity. With lossless having all of it, which is a nice feeling and enhances the music a lot. Hell there's moods where I'm tired and I don't wanna listen to less than lossless for some reason.
Most people just want to throw whatever they have on their iPod and go. Which usually means at 128. Not to mention they are also brainwashed by the radio which is shitty quality as is. On top of that add in that most people dont play their music though decent speakers but whatever cheap shit speakers theyve bought so 9 times out of 10 past the movie theater, a nicer club or the family trip to best buy is about as good of quality that they hear things.
People also usually only care about having the highs absolutely piercing and their lows booming. So there's no emphasis on the true bulk of the music in the midrange.
Not to mention.... tried listening to the radio stations on iTunes.... gah id rather go listen to a cassette in a Chevy Celebrity with blown stock speakers.
___________________
I will never be forgotten. I will only fade as time goes on from your conscious thoughts
Jun-19-2009 12:51
d-miurge
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Unicornland
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yeah, the difference between CD quality and higher bit rates or sample rates didn't seem to be obvious to a group of "professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles" in this study:
48kHz is useless if you have a track produce with 44kHz sounds. It can even produce white noise.
Jun-19-2009 13:18
notelfreak
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2009
Location: not in elfreaks house at fucking all.
quote:
Originally posted by RapidFire
for audiophiles on here, would you say that 192 is a decent bit rate? or is anything under 320 unaccaptable? i tend to find most tracks in the 192 + zone tend to sound good enough. and anything under that...the difference is far too noticable
it really depends on what you use to listen to it.
on run of the mill multi media speakers, you won't be able to tell.
on a good quality set of monitors, or a clubs system you will notice the low end lacking and the highs being compressed right away. Try mixing a 320 or wav into a 192, then you will really notice.
___________________
ania will you marry me?
Jun-19-2009 13:21
DJSoulstone
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2007
Location: Berlin (GTA #346)
Btw usual fm radio has a lowpass at 15kHz which is compareable to 96kbit/s. So 128kbit/s is actually an upgrade...
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: A Fragment of a dream
quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium
I've heard some 128kbps MP3's with better encoding than some of their 320kbps counterparts. Especially when it comes to older music.
Most young people dont care about bitrates because they dont like the music that much. They use shitty-ass q-tip headphones.
Peer pressure makes people want to stick with crappy headphones, the Ipod headphones, so in that case you will not be able to tell a difference (or enjoy, for that matter) between 128kbps and 320kbps.
Only for audiophiles it makes a difference, ad for DJ's. People love their 60-inch screen TVs and massive stereo speakers, but generally they dont like massive cans on their heads - those are the headphones where you will hear the details well, and in many cases still wont be able to tell the difference between 192 and 320 kbps.
I will only listen to music from my mp3 players with great headphones. I purchased a pair of ultimate ear extended bass headphones for 200$ and I will never use anything less anymore. The bass sends shivers down my spine during certain parts and the music is so clear I can hear things I would never have heard on speakers or anything else. Now do I see everyone out there rushing to buy a 200$ pair of headphones... No. I still prefer WAV's when mixing or burning cd's because I can pick out the disortions and it drives me crazy.
