I really would like to hear a few tracks, both WAV and MP3 played let's say in Fabric or some other club with a good, finely tuned sound system and then try to hear the difference. i'm arguing that since club music is made for the club, that setting should be considered a benchmarking place for music production/sound quality, that's all. i would on the other hand have a problem with a Bach or Vivaldi recording sounding shyte on my home speakers or headphones, but with dance music i want to have the benifits of the environment for which the music was produced for in the first place. not to diss the all-prevailing, disc-space-saving MP3, just my thoughts on this ....
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By all means play uncompressed WAV files. > > No matter what you play, if you care at all you'll get more out of a > system if you spend a little more for proper Digital to Analog > conversion. I've been using an RME Hammerfall DSP for several years > now. I found some TRS 1/4" to Male XLR cables, so I'm running > balanced all the way to the house mixer. That seems to make a the > difference in sound -- I think I can even hear the difference DI boxes > make. And the RME Multiface in general sounds so much clearer in the > high end than built-in laptop sound or M-Audio outboard sound > interfaces. > > I only got two responses from people with the courage to try and > distinguish between 16 bit uncompressed audio and 320KBS MP3. Now it > might be that it was an unfair test, but both people who took the > challenge guessed wrong -- the MP3 sample was first. The one other > response I got was 'I can't hear any difference whatsoever.' I wasn't > an objective listener, and was biased toward the 'no difference' > position, but I listened to that sample on my studio monitors and > headphones for a long time, and I couldn't hear any difference -- even > after I actually extracted the difference between the files and > amplified it so I could hear it. > > I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think properly encoded MP3 > files sound noticeably different than uncompressed audio. I also think > that big systems -- no matter how expensive or carefully configured-- > aren't going to make it easier to hear those differences. I don't > think that any objective test of those hypotheses would prove > otherwise. > > On the other hand, there's an art and craft to making music sound > really good, and everyone has their own formula that's part voodoo. I > get all excited about running balanced to the PA, but if you did a > blind test with decent DI boxes and properly matched levels, I might > not be able to tell the difference either. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Davor Ostojic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kent, i was more aiming to the richer, broader and deeper sound i feel >> the wav provides on a club soundsystem. >
