register

  • Categories

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

 

320kps downloading

Off Topic » 320kps downloading (Posts 91 to 120 of 142)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Ok Superman... what exactly are the differences? What are you noticing? What isn't present in a 320k file that you are hearing in a lossless file? I'm truly curious!

    I'm also going to set up a little test for you, Tom. I'm going to create a WAV file with the same 30 second selection. In the WAV file there will be a 128K rip, a 192k rip, a 320k rip and a lossless rip. I'm not going to tell you the order and I want you to tell me what's what.

    -Erik-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    • CommentAuthorAnthony
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    I'd like to take a shot at that too! smile

    (Although 320 is more than enough for me).
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Erik Woods wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Tom, be careful with these rash revelations.
    Lex Luthor is paying handsomely to know your true identity.


    Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

    -Erik-


    Very sharp biggrin
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ok Superman... what exactly are the differences? What are you noticing? What isn't present in a 320k file that you are hearing in a lossless file? I'm truly curious!

    I'm also going to set up a little test for you, Tom. I'm going to create a WAV file with the same 30 second selection. In the WAV file there will be a 128K rip, a 192k rip, a 320k rip and a lossless rip. I'm not going to tell you the order and I want you to tell me what's what.

    -Erik-


    Only that test has no relation with what Tom is saying there.

    I don't think he's actually suggesting he has superman ears and can tell the difference in "blind" listening sessions such as yours, where you don't actually know what is what.

    In Tom's (and many other audiophiles' cases), there's the subjective element of psychology where you know before what is that you are going to listen to (you can't do otherwise at your home whilst listening to your collection) which is what forces them to be disturb through the listening session because of the subjective evaluation of the sound quality.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Surely that's exactly what Erik's test would be eliminating then? The subjective/psychological element?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    I don't think Tom cares? 'Cause in his private listening sessions, he will always know what he'll be listening to, therefore that element will always be present.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Yes, very true. Hence Erik's suggestion (Erik creating the files and NOT divulging their bitrate).
    It'd be an interesting experiment if Tom would be happy to try.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Martijn wrote
    Surely that's exactly what Erik's test would be eliminating then? The subjective/psychological element?


    BING-FUCKING-O!

    -Erik-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    Tom puts on cd; he knows it's a cd and deep down expects it to sound better.
    Tom puts on mp3; good luck convincing him there is no difference (i am with you and Erik, no question here, but i am not Tom smile )
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2010
    D., read Erik's idea again. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2010
    Erik Woods wrote
    Ok Superman... what exactly are the differences? What are you noticing? What isn't present in a 320k file that you are hearing in a lossless file? I'm truly curious!

    I'm also going to set up a little test for you, Tom. I'm going to create a WAV file with the same 30 second selection. In the WAV file there will be a 128K rip, a 192k rip, a 320k rip and a lossless rip. I'm not going to tell you the order and I want you to tell me what's what.

    -Erik-


    I would be happy to do the test with the following stipulations. I pick the material. It has to be on a CD so that I can eliminate the crappy sound from my computer which I think is one of the weak links in the MP3 listening. I'll send you a favorite recording of Bolero that I have and you can make a file in 128, 192, 256, and 320. I know what the lossless sounds like. I can hear the difference in the recording Erik playing it on my computer and listening to it with the headphones plugged into the computer. I have a portable Philips unit and I can hear the difference between that and my CD player which is using my amplifier. And of course there is a bigger difference between the headphones and my speakers which is why I'm looking at better cans.
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2010
    The stereo system gives the recording a warmth that is lacking on the computer and cd player
    listen to more classical music!
    • CommentAuthorAnthony
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2010
    So you're listening to CD's and MP3's on different systems? No wonder it sounds different. dizzy
  14. Anthony wrote
    So you're listening to CD's and MP3's on different systems? No wonder it sounds different. dizzy

    When I listen to scores from the 1940s I can hear a difference to one from 2010. 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
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2010
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    Anthony wrote
    So you're listening to CD's and MP3's on different systems? No wonder it sounds different. dizzy

    When I listen to scores from the 1940s I can hear a difference to one from 2010. wink


    I realize that I'm not explaining myself correctly and as a result your having good natured fun with me. I'll tell you one thing Alan and that is if you listen to a 40's mono recording through a mono system it will sound better. The speakers weren't designed for 18-22000 recordings. They were likely more like 50-12000 if that. That makes a difference.

    I have 5 different ways to listen to my material. Three of them allow the use of headphones my computer, portable CD player, and stereo system. The same recording sounds different. Why? Because there are three different kinds of D/A converters. The stereo system with the cans produces a spacious richer sound. The flute, clarinet, french horn produce a smoother sound on the CD as opposed to the 320kps.
    Tom
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2011
    Still waiting for an opinion from D on the CD player.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2011
    Just got home Tom smile Got any models or make or specific store you're considering buying from? A budget?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2011
    $500
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2011
    I'm looking for the best possible converter along with an acceptable preamp built in for the cans. I'll have it on my desk and no longer use the computer to listen to anything to which is the problem. The sound quality is less than unless I download a 128kps file then it doesn't matter as this is nothing more than radio quality to me.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 3rd 2011
    Tom, do you need it to have a built-in dac (digital-to-analog converter) or do you already have one in the hifi?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2011
    i need one
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2011
    Hm, i saw several models under 500 usd but most of them didn't have a built-in dac. Let me search a bit more.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2011
    I am having troubles finding a cd player / dac built-in for under 500usd

    http://www.upscaleaudio.com/products/ca … gital.html
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011
    So what would you suggest?
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011
    Do you need a built in dac? or do you already have a hi-fi amp in which you can plug a standalone / non-dac cd player?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011
    i have a tandberg 3012 i can use
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2011
    No dac cd player for (almost) under 500usd

    1.Marantz CD6003

    £ 300*****
    Best CD player up to £500, Awards 2010. A fabulous player that produces class-leading sonics by the vanload. Immense value for money too

    http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Marantz-CD6003/

    2.Pioneer PD-D6-J

    £ 350*****
    Not flawless, but it’s extraordinarily talented, too

    http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Pioneer-PD-D6-J/

    3.Yamaha CD-S700

    £ 400***
    An object of beauty, but there isn’t enough substance to keep you entertained in the long run

    (despite what the review says, yamaha products are always a guarantee imo)

    http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Yamaha-CD-S700/

    4. NAD C545BEE

    £ 350*****
    A gifted CD player that can still rub shoulders with the very best decks that the budget market can offer

    http://www.whathifi.com/Review/NAD-C545BEE/
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2011
    thanks D as always. My bio is done too!
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2011
    What is your opinion D of the SACD system. Any merit?
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2011
    Erik too if you have any experience with it
    listen to more classical music!

91 to 120 of 142

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. >