• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    As some of you know I spent a year in Minneapolis without my complete stereo setup. I very recently got all of it hooked up again and started listening to some material which was downloaded at 320. I never realized how poor the quality is. Even a lossless Chandos doesn't sound as good as the CD. Am I doing something wrong.

    I'm still intrigued at what I read in the 2010 Penguin Guide that talks about a download that is superior to CD. Does anyone know about this? I might be real interested in that.

    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    First of all, where did you download the 320k stuff from? Are these files that you bought or were files sent to you by another user? Files that are downloaded from file sharing networks are suspect. You never know what the source is. They could be a transcoded 192k MP3 files. And sometimes even the professionals accidentally use a lossy source.

    Anyway, Tom, give us some more specifics. What exactly are you playing? Where did you get it from? Did they sound fine in Minny... if so, what was your set up there?

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    • CommentAuthorAnthony
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    :makes way for new Justin:
  1. Tom, as Erik mentioned, you need to be careful of the original source. A 320kbps of a 128kbps source is never going to be very good. But it still can be said to be an "320kbps rip."
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorRian
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    The best "download" that is "superior" *cough* to a CD are those using lossless codecs. A list of the most known ones can be found here (Wikipedia), and various free software already allow ripping them to some of these codecs.

    Windows media player will probably allow ripping to its lossless WMA9L format, while iTunes will without doubt propose its own ALAC. I know for a fact that the free version of Winamp can encode to FLAC (which is perhaps the best known format), but it is not supported for playback by both Windows Media Player or iTunes.

    Of course there are more professional tools to create the cd rips, but it all depends on what soft/hardware you're going to use it on. If you've hooked up your stereo directly to your computer, it doesn't matter much, but if you place tracks on an iPod(-like) device, it's wise to look up its supported formats before doing all the trouble.

    Unfortunately, for best compatibility, lossy (not lossless) mp3 at 320kbps is the format to choose.
    What do you hear? Nothing but the rain...
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    Erik the file came from Roy and it was the new release of the tiomkin/gerhardt recording. I'm now back to using my tube equipment and my big Klipsch Corner Horn Speakers. In Minneapolis I had a NAD integrated amp with some smaller JBL monitor 2 way speakers. For your info my CD Player is also a tube unit that goes perfectly with my McIntosh tube preamp and amp. I would assume from Roy or Jim the quality would be good but this wasn't the case. As I said before even the lossless download from Chandos was missing something. I'm still intrigued with this so called better quality than a CD download. I guess I should write the author of the book.
    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    how is any lossless format better than the actual source it is ripping from ?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  2. Christodoulides wrote
    how is any lossless format better than the actual source it is ripping from ?


    That's right up there with the chicken and the egg.
    And the answer to that one (in case anybody is wondering) is the egg.

    Elin
    Recognizing somebody else's strength doesn't diminish your own (Joss Whedon)
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    Mmmmm... eggs. Mmmmm... Beer Can Chicken. Oh, this isn't the food thread?

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    Skating_Lientje wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    how is any lossless format better than the actual source it is ripping from ?


    That's right up there with the chicken and the egg.
    And the answer to that one (in case anybody is wondering) is the egg.

    Elin
    science does not work like that. Things are pretty simple with there things.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    There can be a huge differences between mp3s depending on the encoder used. I've heard 128 kbps mp3s that sound better than 320 kbps mp3s, heck I've heard 64 kbps mp3s that sounded better than certain 320 kbps mp3s. The encoder called Lame always does it's job. There are others out there that are just dreadful, and I don't get why people continue to use them. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between a 320 kbps Lame encoded mp3 and CD quality. I'm sure there are people who claim they can, but I'd like to see a blind test of that.

    Peter smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010 edited
    very subjective treats they can't be scientifically tested at least not easily and trustworth enough.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  3. Christodoulides wrote
    science does not work like that. Things are pretty simple with there things.


    Sorry, I didn't get the last part of your statement. Could you please rephrase?

    Elin
    Recognizing somebody else's strength doesn't diminish your own (Joss Whedon)
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
    Some kind of weird ass D'ism dizzy
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    Christodoulides wrote
    Skating_Lientje wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    how is any lossless format better than the actual source it is ripping from ?


    That's right up there with the chicken and the egg.
    And the answer to that one (in case anybody is wondering) is the egg.

    Elin
    science does not work like that. Things are pretty simple with there things.


    She's right. Science does in fact say that the egg came first.

    Also. What?!

    Peter dizzy
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    Christodoulides wrote
    how is any lossless format better than the actual source it is ripping from ?


    it has to do with how the sound is processed.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    plindboe wrote
    There can be a huge differences between mp3s depending on the encoder used. I've heard 128 kbps mp3s that sound better than 320 kbps mp3s, heck I've heard 64 kbps mp3s that sounded better than certain 320 kbps mp3s. The encoder called Lame always does it's job. There are others out there that are just dreadful, and I don't get why people continue to use them. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between a 320 kbps Lame encoded mp3 and CD quality. I'm sure there are people who claim they can, but I'd like to see a blind test of that.

    Peter smile


    Peter I have spent thousands of dollars to obtain state of the art equipment. I'm sure I can tell the difference in the sound quality. We've got people who swear by their headphones/earbuds. To me they offer nothing other than being able to listen without disturbing someone. In otherwords being kind they're a joke all of them. I'm looking for concert hall quality where in a very quiet situation one could hear 7 different instruments playing at the same time. Yes it requires concentration but a ppp note from an oboe played alongside a pluck from the string bass, a single note from the harpsichord is all essential to me. And while my system is ok it doesn't compare to the concert hall because my room acoustics are shit. The best quality I've ever achieved were direct to disk recordings and master tapes recorded at 15IPS both things of the past. The human ear understands the difference in a CD and other recording mediums. Same is true of a photograph. I've seen digitally enhanced Ansel Adams prints and compared to the original they aren't as good. Just a generation thing. I'm sure I'm wrong.
    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    sdtom wrote
    Peter I have spent thousands of dollars to obtain state of the art equipment. I'm sure I can tell the difference in the sound quality. We've got people who swear by their headphones/earbuds. To me they offer nothing other than being able to listen without disturbing someone. In otherwords being kind they're a joke all of them.


    That's not true. There are high end... and mean HIIIIIIIIGH end headphones that will give you the exact sound that you need.

    sdtom wrote
    I'm looking for concert hall quality where in a very quiet situation one could hear 7 different instruments playing at the same time. Yes it requires concentration but a ppp note from an oboe played alongside a pluck from the string bass, a single note from the harpsichord is all essential to me.


    Tom... first of all, you have to have a competent recording engineer in order for you to hear all of those separate elements. I don't care how much money you spent on your gear or where you set it up but if the recording engineer doesn't know what he is doing then what's the point.

    sdtom wrote
    And while my system is ok it doesn't compare to the concert hall because my room acoustics are shit. The best quality I've ever achieved were direct to disk recordings and master tapes recorded at 15IPS both things of the past. The human ear understands the difference in a CD and other recording mediums. Same is true of a photograph. I've seen digitally enhanced Ansel Adams prints and compared to the original they aren't as good. Just a generation thing. I'm sure I'm wrong.
    Thomas


    I've been to a few concerts and recording sessions and I love the sound of a concert hall. Out of all the CD's I own the closest anyone has come to capturing that sound of sitting in the seats at a concert hall was Jack Renner and his 80's recordings with Erich Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops. I remember concerts both in Buffalo and Toronto and thinking to myself this sounds just like a Telarc recording.

    I'm sure there or many other albums that sound just as good so I think it is possible to re-create that concert hall sound in your living room.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    link me to a high end set of phones
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    sdtom wrote
    Peter I have spent thousands of dollars to obtain state of the art equipment. I'm sure I can tell the difference in the sound quality. We've got people who swear by their headphones/earbuds. To me they offer nothing other than being able to listen without disturbing someone. In otherwords being kind they're a joke all of them. I'm looking for concert hall quality where in a very quiet situation one could hear 7 different instruments playing at the same time. Yes it requires concentration but a ppp note from an oboe played alongside a pluck from the string bass, a single note from the harpsichord is all essential to me. And while my system is ok it doesn't compare to the concert hall because my room acoustics are shit. The best quality I've ever achieved were direct to disk recordings and master tapes recorded at 15IPS both things of the past. The human ear understands the difference in a CD and other recording mediums. Same is true of a photograph. I've seen digitally enhanced Ansel Adams prints and compared to the original they aren't as good. Just a generation thing. I'm sure I'm wrong.
    Thomas


    It would be interesting if you did a rip using a good ripper (like Exact Audio Copy) and a good encoder (Lame) and tested whether you could tell the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and the CD. One thing that's important is that the test must be blind, because psychology can really play in if you're aware which is which. If you get a friend to play the tracks for you, where he knows which is which and where you don't, and you then try to hear if you can tell which is which, that would be convincing.

    Peter smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    "One thing that's important is that the test must be blind, because psychology can really play in if you're aware which is which."

    True.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  4. Please don't tell me I have to rip all my CDs again!
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    No, not really.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  5. Phew!

    With all this talk of mp3s of differing quality and FSM's fervent criticism of the new Conan The Barbarian release I'm considering just reading books about film music rather than actually listening to anything!

    wink
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    You really pay attention to fsm sound criticism or in general such debates? Thank God i am not following. Except for the very few extreme, obvious cases of bad mixing / recording, people are being smartasses, know-it-all and levelling. People must learn to appreciate others' work and just because one buys cd's of music, has a so-and-so or even decent audio system and loves music, that doesn't mean he's automatically a sound engineer too.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    Christodoulides wrote
    No, not really.


    FalkirkBairn wrote
    Please don't tell me I have to rip all my CDs again!


    Remember that my equipment was designed for listening to lp's not digital downloads and cd's. D of all people should truly understand where I'm coming from on this friendly discussion. Perhaps the answer is that tubes don't mix well with digital processing. While I'm the first to admit that there is an unavoidable level of surface noise and click and pop from the LP there is a warmth that is impossible to duplicate when the digital process takes place. In fact some of the best recordings I own are mono classical recordings. The room acoustics, usually a very old church come through loud and clear. Even a transfer to CD from a 50's recording and I site as an example a recording that Fritz Reiner made of Scheherazade with the Chicago Symphony in 1956 have decent sound but the Living Stereo LP is superb. I would encourage all to listen to it through proper equipment and you'll understand my point. I will admit as far as modern equipment is concerned this new SACD system is very good. There are too few recordings however available in this format and as I stated before my room acoustics are shit. I'll someday as a project seek out the so called super headphones that Erik talks about to hear them but phones cannot duplicate the concert hall.
    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!
  6. Not really. That's why I had the winking icon included.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    I am not talking about you Tom smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    Ask D why Mac and older Klipsch equipment is sought after.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2010
    one other point to keep in mind and that is I spent so much money on this equipment that at the time I could have purchased a house but chose the audio system instead. probably not a wise choice.
    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!