Bjossi on 15/5/2007 at 18:09
I hear the difference when I play a 320k ripped song and then the twin brother on the CD itself, or vice versa. I have pretty good ears so that definitely helps. :)
Valet2 on 15/5/2007 at 18:34
I think we will never get the uncompressed soundtrack.
Angelfire on 15/5/2007 at 19:39
I think the last five pages have been complete gibberish to me...
Bjossi on 15/5/2007 at 22:07
Quote Posted by Valet2
I think we will never get the uncompressed soundtrack.
That depends on MysteryDev, he isn't exactly an active member here. :erm:
Rogue Keeper on 16/5/2007 at 07:41
As far as I know, the 24-bit crystalizer which Creative implements into X-Fi cards has earned a lot of criticism from audio geeks, because they have marketed it as a wonderful thing that will restore portions of the sound which were lost during compression and generate proper 24-bit resolution audio from a 16-bit one. Mathematically taken that's nonsense. Basically it's just a multiband compressor, it enhances some low and high frequencies and slightly increases the volume. Anybody can get the same improvement after few minutes of tampering with classic equalizer and saving his favourite preset for specific type of audio. It may improve sound in some average speakers, certainly. Will such altered song sound better? Maybe, depends on individual perception and taste. Does it sound more "correct"? That's questionable, since it's not the original song "as it was meant to sound" anymore.
So much for a magical 24-bit thingy. A smart marketing technique to sell a l33t feature to trusting, but less mathematically skilled consumers ?
Bjossi on 16/5/2007 at 15:30
Well, either way it adds clarity to my audio, and I use expensive listening gear.
As long as the feature improves audio like it was supposed to, I don't really care if they told a few white lies about the way it was done.
phibes on 16/5/2007 at 20:48
Quote Posted by MorbusG
128K AAC -- I seriously can't hear any difference on my seriously good speaker system, nor on my seriously good headphones with my seriously good hearing.
128kbit mp3 is almost perfect. Noone can hear a difference in a blind-test. Its all placebo-effect .... just think about all those brainless idiots buying 1000$ speaker cable ... all this hifi/highend is voodoo-bullshit like never seen before.
Kaleid on 16/5/2007 at 20:52
128 files usually have cut offs in the higher frequencies far too early.
192 is a minimum for music IMO.
And cables can make a difference but more expensive does not always mean better. I actually use powercables (EKK) as loudspeaker cables atm...
flexbuster on 16/5/2007 at 22:07
128kbps MP3 is almost never "almost perfect". I'm not an audiophile or anything similar, but sometimes it's quite possible to tell the difference between even a well-encoded, high-bitrate MP3 and the source CD. It really depends on the music sometimes, and definitely on how good your speakers are.
I just wish I didn't have this crappy laptop sound chipset. D:
Also, laughing quite a bit here about the concepts of turning MP3s into FLACs and converting 16-bit audio into 24-bit.
Bjossi on 16/5/2007 at 22:20
Quote Posted by phibes
128kbit mp3 is almost perfect.
That tells me your ears aren't.
