|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.63.144.215
In Reply to: RE: this is what it has come to, posted by bullethead on March 29, 2014 at 19:14:04
you are correct, good music is good music...great sound is just the bonus highlighting the Sonics of music...IMHO...
I always go back to SRV's Texas Flood, terrible recording, great music...
I have some live Springsteen bootlegs, that sound terrible, but they captured the energy of the live shows and the music is great...
So, yea I get it...
thanks
Mark
Follow Ups:
By that I mean 320 Kbps, with well-done conversion. Differences from WAV are clearly audible on resolving system, but these MP3 do not sound offensive.
Here's the album, swedish metal band.
I like the LAME encoder myself, VBR 192 is listenable, but CBR 320 is much better.
If the conversion to MP3 is done well, it is very difficult to distinguish from uncompressed CD-quality WAV playback.
Great test Mr. Krieger !
I do not perceive a big difference
I slightly prefer Test File B ... i bet is the compressed one
have you already disclose which is which ?
Thanks great test
Kind regards,
bg
"have you already disclose which is which ?"
Nope.... I only tabulate which was preferred (or deemed better).
I also swapped these files over the years. (So a preference of "A" now might not necessarily be the same as a preference of "A" several months or several years ago.) But your response is tabulated.
I will say that over 60 percent preferred the MP3-converted WAV over the uncompressed WAV. Your response will bump it a smidgen one way or the other. [-;
Hello Mr. Krieger,
well this is amazing already !
I have just listened through headphones and differences are not night and day but my system is low quality.
But i am sure a lot of Inmates have downloaded and listened to the tracks on very resolving systemsBy the way, I have to say that my feeling is that tracks where there is a great depth of soundstage could be more telling.
I was reading about a comparison between a very high quality LP and its recording made with a Korg dsd digital recorder. A really good one.
The digital copy sounded also good but depth of soundstage was reduced, not on a par with the original. A little collapsed.
I mean that bigger differences could show up more with a high end recording where space is captured very well ... maybe.
Not a recording gone through mix console, compression and so on
Maybe ...
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 03/30/14 03/30/14 03/30/14 03/30/14
I tried an ABX test with the two tracks, and failed it.... The only time I was able to notice a difference was burning the tracks to CD-R and listening to it on a good CD rig based system.
Thanks again and very interesting
Maybe it is a Auto-Tune recording ?
I mean, the original compression/manipulation during the recording can have already done the damage.
I was reading here about some Japanese recordings of extreme quality
Maybe in that case differences between original and MP3 could show up more ?
I think it is important to start with an excellent track.
With hihg dynamic and spatial informations.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
"Maybe it is a Auto-Tune recording ?"
Not that particular track..... It was a primary reason why I selected it. (Although Aleks Syntek, the artist on the clip, did use Auto-Tune in later albums.)
I think running audio evaluations with an Auto-Tune'd track would be like running photo evaluations of skin tones using sodium lamps..........
Hi and thanks for the info.
I think that the bitrate ratio between original and 320K mp3 should be 4.4 to 1 ?
a good saving of space ...
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: