Decent sound equipment ruined my day - Page 6

Drubbing · 12th August 2012, 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excess

Regarding sources its generally best to do as less decoding as possible as bitperfect playback is only restricted in the time domain.

This make no sense at all, bad grammar aside. Try partially decoding a digital file and see how good it sounds. Decoding quality is only as good as the decoder; it's not a matter or less or more.

Excess · 12th August 2012, 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing

This make no sense at all, bad grammar aside. Try partially decoding a digital file and see how good it sounds. Decoding quality is only as good as the decoder; it's not a matter or less or more.

Please understand your own statement before criticising mine. All I am saying, is that don't encode/decode when you don't need to and/or can afford not to. Example if you can afford to store/play lossless files then do it. Mp3 was made to reduce the size and still provide a semi-realistic reproduction of the original.

Is it far better to do less processes. The HiFi setting most people use means all other DSP(effects etc) are off.

Any step that alters the data only gives it a slightly more chance that'll will be not an exact faithful reproduction of the original recording.

And now my next point, bitperfect playback. In other words the exact order of 1s and 0s when it was recorded which is very easy to achieve but to provide the exact timing of the 1s/0s is impossible as there is no perfect clock.

Then at the end will be the digital to analogue conversion which will be dependant on your DAC.

Drubbing · 12th August 2012, 7:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excess

Please understand your own statement before criticising mine. .

Then write statements that make sense, not something half thought of.

Lossless vs 320. Hardly anyone can hear a difference, even when they're listening for it, so all the techy arguments you make are fairly meaningless.

DSP? You're talking about software fx like EQ. This should have nothing to do with decoding per se, it's a playback feature. That can introduce artefacts to the signal AFTER decoding. I think people understand if they use EQ, they're messing with the signal.

Excess · 13th August 2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing

Then write statements that make sense, not something half thought of.

Lossless vs 320. Hardly anyone can hear a difference, even when they're listening for it, so all the techy arguments you make are fairly meaningless.

DSP? You're talking about software fx like EQ. This should have nothing to do with decoding per se, it's a playback feature. That can introduce artefacts to the signal AFTER decoding. I think people understand if they use EQ, they're messing with the signal.

Its not even about if the difference is even audible, between lossless vs 320, its the pure simple fact that one is lossless and the other is lossy, there is SOMETHING lost during the conversion.

Software effects contaminates on the digital stage of audio before it reaches any decoding required, before/after isn't even important.

Anyways I am done trying to justify myself to someone with little to no technical knowledge about anything your talking about. Have a nice day.

m3k · 13th August 2012, 3:18 PM

The data lost going down to 320 is like mostly things outside of human audible range afaik.. This is after looking at raw waveform and spectral frequency graphs

Gl hearing above 22khz etc

And yes messing with eq is preference, but most eqs won't damage the audio afaik, however leaving eq alone and getting flat response speakers or headphones is the best move, and making sure your amp is paired with your headphones is important too... That being said most headphones will run just fine straight off soundcard.. If not excellent.

But IMHO your headphone/ speakers matter alooottt more than your drop to 320kbit mp3, so chill and save hdd space, I often am grateful that mp3 cuts off high frequency noise, incase I crank it up to listen to quiet bits, i might be blasting 24 kHz into my eardrums and wouldn't even notice me damaging my hearing

Comma · 13th August 2012, 3:30 PM

We should do a who's-who's of OCAU Audio some day.

^catalyst · 13th August 2012, 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excess

Anyways I am done trying to justify myself to someone with little to no technical knowledge about anything your talking about. Have a nice day.

That's not really fair, Drubbing provides a lot of quality advice around here.

dakiller · 13th August 2012, 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excess

Anyways I am done trying to justify myself to someone with little to no technical knowledge about anything your talking about. Have a nice day.

On the contrary, with the terminology that you are using, I would say you don't have a very good technical knowledge and you don't know how to express what you are saying and don't have the proper technical terminology.

Mickatroid · 13th August 2012, 9:05 PM

Some rough stats

FLAC (lossless) files created from my largish CD collection: 230 Gig from 9400 tracks with cover art.

Cost of HDD capacity used: <$25

Availability of any other format at any other quality as if freshly ripped: 100%

Time taken to convert everything to MP3 on my aging PhenomII X4: hours not days.

On this basis I suggest

If you care about the best quality and the greatest flexibility in producing other formats and compression ratios to the highest standards for different applications I can't see how you could object to lossless. If you don't care, it doesn't matter

.

That said, 'don't go below 192kbit VBR (LAME level 2) for MP3' is a fair rule of thumb even if you really really don't care (though IMO the results at that bitrate are pretty good even if you do). If you are looking for hints from the software itself as I understand it the LAME command line preset 'switch' for 320kbit is 'insane'

around 192kbit is 'standard' and 'extreme' is around 245kbit.

As to what bitrate for lossy compression (for portable devices for example): try a few different bit rates and strike a balance between the space you have, the number of tracks you want to squeeze into it and the quality you need in the circumstances. It will be a balance and a bitrate that suits you. It may even be that you decide to use lossless everywhere (hardware permitting).

Don't forget though, if you started with lossless using these 'master files' you can change your mind about other formats every second day and it will not matter.

As for the OP, if you go with lossless now, more good hifi equipment need not ruin your day next time

Enjoy.

13th August 2012, 3:18 PM	#80
m3k Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 525	The data lost going down to 320 is like mostly things outside of human audible range afaik.. This is after looking at raw waveform and spectral frequency graphs Gl hearing above 22khz etc And yes messing with eq is preference, but most eqs won't damage the audio afaik, however leaving eq alone and getting flat response speakers or headphones is the best move, and making sure your amp is paired with your headphones is important too... That being said most headphones will run just fine straight off soundcard.. If not excellent. But IMHO your headphone/ speakers matter alooottt more than your drop to 320kbit mp3, so chill and save hdd space, I often am grateful that mp3 cuts off high frequency noise, incase I crank it up to listen to quiet bits, i might be blasting 24 kHz into my eardrums and wouldn't even notice me damaging my hearing Last edited by m3k; 13th August 2012 at 3:26 PM.

13th August 2012, 3:30 PM	#81
Comma Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 3,455	We should do a who's-who's of OCAU Audio some day.

13th August 2012, 9:05 PM	#84
Mickatroid Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Canberra Posts: 903	Some rough stats FLAC (lossless) files created from my largish CD collection: 230 Gig from 9400 tracks with cover art. Cost of HDD capacity used: <$25 Availability of any other format at any other quality as if freshly ripped: 100% Time taken to convert everything to MP3 on my aging PhenomII X4: hours not days. On this basis I suggest If you care about the best quality and the greatest flexibility in producing other formats and compression ratios to the highest standards for different applications I can't see how you could object to lossless. If you don't care, it doesn't matter . That said, 'don't go below 192kbit VBR (LAME level 2) for MP3' is a fair rule of thumb even if you really really don't care (though IMO the results at that bitrate are pretty good even if you do). If you are looking for hints from the software itself as I understand it the LAME command line preset 'switch' for 320kbit is 'insane' around 192kbit is 'standard' and 'extreme' is around 245kbit. As to what bitrate for lossy compression (for portable devices for example): try a few different bit rates and strike a balance between the space you have, the number of tracks you want to squeeze into it and the quality you need in the circumstances. It will be a balance and a bitrate that suits you. It may even be that you decide to use lossless everywhere (hardware permitting). Don't forget though, if you started with lossless using these 'master files' you can change your mind about other formats every second day and it will not matter. As for the OP, if you go with lossless now, more good hifi equipment need not ruin your day next time Enjoy.