Quad wrote:
I've always tried to be an enlightened audiophile. I won't do double
blind tests myself because I'm too lazy, but I usually trust those tests
and I think they are a good way to find out if something is audible or
not.
I'm 36 years old and here is what I claim to be able to
callesoroe wrote:
hear differences in FLAC vs MP3/320 that removes over 70% of the
original music data ? It is audible
Do you have any credible evidence showing it is audible?
Julf's Profile:
Julf wrote:
Do you have any credible evidence showing it is audible?
It is quite logic.. and there is really huge differences in
sound Room and life in the music dissapears . and your ears gets
tired of listning to it in longer time.
Drum cymbals say DING and not Diing when
callesoroe wrote:
It is quite logic.. and there is really huge differences in
sound Room and life in the music dissapears . and your ears gets
tired of listning to it in longer time.
Drum cymbals say DING and not Diing when listning to MP3
... Just an examble.
callesoroe wrote:
It is quite logic.. and there is really huge differences in
sound Room and life in the music dissapears . and your ears gets
tired of listning to it in longer time.
Drum cymbals say DING and not Diing when listning to MP3
... Just an examble.
Julf wrote:
No. It's not quite logic. In fact it is pretty far from logic. MP3 is a
perceptual codec. It throws away data - but only data that the
perceptual algorithms deem unlikely to be audible. The rest of what you
report is purely subjective observations. Please note I asked for
callesoroe wrote:
My only evidence is that the data of the original music file has been
dramatic reduced, and that is very audible in my setup. And I am NOT a
cable freak og
anything like that. The differences is just so big, that I can not
understand if anyone should have problems telling
Archimago wrote:
? What do you mean well recorded or bad recorded track? Are you
talking about the source itself (ie. different remasters?) or bad
ripping of the same CD?
I understand your assertion/belief in the first paragraph (whether it's
empirically true is another issue), but your
callesoroe wrote:
My only evidence is that the data of the original music file has been
dramatic reduced, and that is very audible in my setup.
Not quite. The data of the original music has been dramatically reduced,
yes. You can hear a difference. Yes. But one does not necessarily follow
callesoroe wrote:
What I meant was that you need to have good source material to reveal
the differences. A bad recording compressed and mastered to death in the
studio, then I agree it is difficult to hear the difference(if any). But
when the source material is great, the you will certanly
Julf wrote:
Not quite. The data of the original music has been dramatically reduced,
yes. You can hear a difference. Yes. But one does not necessarily follow
from the other.
What mp3 encoder are you using?
I have tried both foobar2000 and Mediamonkey Gold. Same results.
callesoroe wrote:
I have tried both foobar2000 and Mediamonkey Gold. Same results.
These are not encoders. Within mediamonkey or foobar2000 are you
encoding mp3 using LAME (I assume). And if so, VBR. CBR, ABR?
garym's
Ok, this is a better way of saying than jumping the gun and deciding I
need a transport with less jitter (mea culpa :-) ) . Inspired by
Archimago, I threw away the TT tweak on my Touch, but later I went back
to it, because I felt I was missing the resolution I had earlier. I also
knew that
garym wrote:
These are not encoders. Within mediamonkey or foobar2000 are you
encoding mp3 using LAME (I assume). And if so, VBR. CBR, ABR? Although
if 320, almost any LAME mp3 file *should* be transparent.
Lame and CBR
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Another observation or illusion (?), if I unplug all the power cords,
clean the prongs with just a clean paper towel and plug it in, the
system sounds very detailed. I check for this with very low volume
listening. What could be happening ?
Very likely the system is
ralphpnj wrote:
To me the CA site is no different from any the high end audio magazines.
The site's founder aka The Computer Audiophile, to his credit, has
managed to ingratiate into the elite regions of high end audio and he is
now unwilling to do anything which might rock the boat and
SuperQ wrote:
Yup, I had an argument with the guy about a month after CA started
posting stuff. It was yet another claim to which USB cable sounds
better. I tried to point out that the devices he was using were async
and buffered, and what he was claiming was impossible. All I got back
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
Ok, this is a better way of saying than jumping the gun and deciding I
need a transport with less jitter (mea culpa :-) ) . Inspired by
Archimago, I threw away the TT tweak on my Touch, but later I went back
to it, because I felt I was missing the resolution I had
18 matches
Mail list logo
