i agree with you. tho it sounds indistinguishable i can hear the
bottom end in the second part get 'rounded' and looses a bit of
breading space, sounds a bit tighter to me. i'm using yamaha HD50M
monitors but to really feel the difference i think this should be
listened to on a club sound system.
Actually the MP3 sample is first.
I'm all for fighting the good fight for sound quality, though.
I kind of wonder about the idea that you can hear differences in a big
club that you can't on headphones or home speakers. Honestly, I can't
hear anything particularly well at 130 decibels, and by
Kent, i was more aiming to the richer, broader and deeper sound i feel
the wav provides on a club soundsystem. i cannot comment on this from
a sound engineer perspective, but rather subjective experience. i
think a good sound system can reproduce low end frequencies i cannot
hear at home, maybe
I'm all for fighting the good fight for sound quality, though.
I kind of wonder about the idea that you can hear differences in a big
club that you can't on headphones or home speakers. Honestly, I can't
hear anything particularly well at 130 decibels, and by the time your
sound reaches the
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
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
kent williams a écrit :
Actually the MP3 sample is first.
OK I got it wrong, using world class 700$ headphones. Not even a
surprise as my hearing is not that great after all those years.
And if I did get it right, it would have meant zilch.
I also don't think a quality sound system would
kent williams a écrit :
Actually the MP3 sample is first.
OK I got it wrong, using world class 700$ headphones. Not even a
surprise as my hearing is not that great after all those years.
And if I did get it right, it would have meant zilch.
I also don't think a quality sound system would
OK I changed the file name:
http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold-test.wav
In Firefox, you can navigate to any URL like this, and choose 'save
as' and save the file. I believe that's the same in a lot of browsers.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Frank Glazer [EMAIL
Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500
'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat.
After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good
sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the
golden ears amongst you to
kent williams a écrit :
Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500
'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat.
After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good
sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the
OK that was just a test. Try this link:
http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM, kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500
'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form
kent williams a écrit :
OK that was just a test. Try this link:
http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav
I think the WAV is first and the MP3 second
I can't personally tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 44.1khz
wav, but I do believe I can tell the difference between analogue/vinyl
and 44.1khz CD music generally speaking. That probably isn't terribly
pertinent to the discussion though. ;)
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Michael
OK I did a second thing that might be of some interest. I took the two
samples, edited the starting point very carefully to get them exactly
in phase, and then subtracted one from the other. In other words, I
made a new sample that was just what was different between the two
versions. This
So hypothetically if your calculations are correct that should be
exactly what 320kbps artifacts sound like.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM, kent williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK I did a second thing that might be of some interest. I took the two
samples, edited the starting point very
16 matches
Mail list logo
