VirtualMark wrote:I hate to point it out, but I'm 33 and have been studying longer than you have. I was put forward a year at school, I'm no dunce. I got A's in my A levels in Physics, Maths and Computing. I have never stopped learning and improving my knowledge. Need I go on?
Using that in an argument is about as 'dunce' like as it gets to be fair. I'm not having a dig I'm just saying, bragging about grades to back an argument isn't the type of thing a clever person does.. something you're claiming to be.
Your damn right I called you an idiot after you were repeatedly patronizing, calling people idiots and stupid and just generally being an overall dick in this thread (as you're known for in general).
Musicians and people who record, do mixing or mastering have a collection of 24 bit 96khz music, or at the very least their own material.
Go ahead and bump up the quality to 640, it's still lossy and there still will be issues in the bass range when you analyze it.
Like I said provide the files, and I'll provide the evidence.
VirtualMark wrote:I hate to point it out, but I'm 33 and have been studying longer than you have. I was put forward a year at school, I'm no dunce. I got A's in my A levels in Physics, Maths and Computing. I have never stopped learning and improving my knowledge. Need I go on?
Using that in an argument is about as 'dunce' like as it gets to be fair. I'm not having a dig I'm just saying, bragging about grades to back an argument isn't the type of thing a clever person does.. something you're claiming to be.
Sos to derail the thread
I agree, but if you read back a few posts, you'll see that Deadly Habit was bragging about his studying, right back to the age of 12. I'm just responding with a short part of my life. It's not something I like to do and totally agree with your point. But Deadly Habit bragged again in the next post, then again, so I felt I should respond - he's not the only person who has studied!
deadly habit wrote:Your damn right I called you an idiot after you were repeatedly patronizing, calling people idiots and stupid and just generally being an overall dick in this thread (as you're known for in general).
Musicians and people who record, do mixing or mastering have a collection of 24 bit 96khz music, or at the very least their own material.
Go ahead and bump up the quality to 640, it's still lossy and there still will be issues in the bass range when you analyze it.
Like I said provide the files, and I'll provide the evidence.
Why don't you just do the test? I'd be interested to see the results. Just rip a track off a CD.
Again, the argument wasn't about HD formats. Sure you have your own stuff, but most people play music at 16bit 44.1khz. That is the comparison i'd like to see.
VirtualMark wrote:I agree, but if you read back a few posts, you'll see that Deadly Habit was bragging about his studying, right back to the age of 12. I'm just responding with a short part of my life. It's not something I like to do and totally agree with your point. But Deadly Habit bragged again in the next post, then again, so I felt I should respond - he's not the only person who has studied!
Thats fair enough, I didn't see that post I'm just selective reading at this stage... its more comical than educational.
Round 2, FIGHT.
FINISH HIM!
Last edited by Muncey on Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wasn't so much bragging, but rather demonstrating that I've had real world experience with a variety of environments and speaker/audio systems. You know that stuff you don't learn just in books. It's handy to have both when speaking on a subject.
deadly habit wrote:I wasn't so much bragging, but rather demonstrating that I've had real world experience with a variety of environments and speaker/audio systems. You know that stuff you don't learn just in books. It's handy to have both when speaking on a subject.
Something that we can agree on! Theory and practise go hand in hand.
Oh and the reason I don't just rip audio myself and such is due to the slight jitter mp3 encoding (at least LAME) introduces compared to raw PCM or even microsoft WAVE which makes lining the sources up perfectly an absolute pain in the ass even prior to phase inversion of one of the sources and I'd much rather sort through the 60,000+ lines of C++ code looking for a couple bugs which seems like it's going to be my primary task for today.
Only one mind numbingly mundane task per day please.
Maybe tomorrow if I'm bored and/or have the patience and time.
VirtualMark wrote:I hate to point it out, but I'm 33 and have been studying longer than you have. I was put forward a year at school, I'm no dunce. I got A's in my A levels in Physics, Maths and Computing. I have never stopped learning and improving my knowledge. Need I go on?
Using that in an argument is about as 'dunce' like as it gets to be fair. I'm not having a dig I'm just saying, bragging about grades to back an argument isn't the type of thing a clever person does.. something you're claiming to be.
Sos to derail the thread
I agree, but if you read back a few posts, you'll see that Deadly Habit was bragging about his studying, right back to the age of 12. I'm just responding with a short part of my life. It's not something I like to do and totally agree with your point. But Deadly Habit bragged again in the next post, then again, so I felt I should respond - he's not the only person who has studied!
I agree with Virtualmark here by the way, people keep going back to the point of him saying 320s arent lossy, when its clear that he did not say that and a 320 MP3 does has a loss of 'information' but that loss isnt really big enough for humans to notice. Alot of these facts that people, are posting are talking about like 128 and 192kbps which I would say that yes there starts to be a noticeable difference between them and wav. but they dont really talk about 320's. That tony andrews funktion one video is waste anyway as he says that CD quality PCM audio 16 bit 44.1KHz sound shit anyway, so if he is saying that is bad, then obviously 320s are going to be, but the argument here is whether there is a difference between CD quality wav or 320 MP3. Which there is not noticeable difference.
A club system is not a good way to measure this and most are hi fidelity and the room acoustics are terrible so as for the loss of bass arguement, it totally depends on where you are in the room anyway! There is no way that when you are in a club and a tune drops any one you will be like 'oh shit, thats a 320 mp3, its wack and sounds like shit' if you do, its probably not, its probably less of even better and you just think its shit quality.
skimpi wrote:Reading this thread has pissed me off lol
I agree with Virtualmark here by the way, people keep going back to the point of him saying 320s arent lossy, when its clear that he did not say that and a 320 MP3 does has a loss of 'information' but that loss isnt really big enough for humans to notice. Alot of these facts that people, are posting are talking about like 128 and 192kbps which I would say that yes there starts to be a noticeable difference between them and wav. but they dont really talk about 320's. That tony andrews funktion one video is waste anyway as he says that CD quality PCM audio 16 bit 44.1KHz sound shit anyway, so if he is saying that is bad, then obviously 320s are going to be, but the argument here is whether there is a difference between CD quality wav or 320 MP3. Which there is not noticeable difference.
A club system is not a good way to measure this and most are hi fidelity and the room acoustics are terrible so as for the loss of bass arguement, it totally depends on where you are in the room anyway! There is no way that when you are in a club and a tune drops any one you will be like 'oh shit, thats a 320 mp3, its wack and sounds like shit' if you do, its probably not, its probably less of even better and you just think its shit quality.
Here's another thing to ponder, once you start pitching up or down (common practice for djs when tunes are at different tempos), or timestretching (seen some ableton people do this in live pa) a lossy encoded file format like a 320 mp3 is really going to start sounding different than a wav.
It's also rather ironic that if you look at other people who have performed null tests they complain both about the highs and the lows having issues.
skimpi wrote:Reading this thread has pissed me off lol
I agree with Virtualmark here by the way, people keep going back to the point of him saying 320s arent lossy, when its clear that he did not say that and a 320 MP3 does has a loss of 'information' but that loss isnt really big enough for humans to notice. Alot of these facts that people, are posting are talking about like 128 and 192kbps which I would say that yes there starts to be a noticeable difference between them and wav. but they dont really talk about 320's. That tony andrews funktion one video is waste anyway as he says that CD quality PCM audio 16 bit 44.1KHz sound shit anyway, so if he is saying that is bad, then obviously 320s are going to be, but the argument here is whether there is a difference between CD quality wav or 320 MP3. Which there is not noticeable difference.
A club system is not a good way to measure this and most are hi fidelity and the room acoustics are terrible so as for the loss of bass arguement, it totally depends on where you are in the room anyway! There is no way that when you are in a club and a tune drops any one you will be like 'oh shit, thats a 320 mp3, its wack and sounds like shit' if you do, its probably not, its probably less of even better and you just think its shit quality.
Thanks, I'm glad someone actually read what I said.
I've found that once you're arguing with 3 or 4 people, the idiots start to show up with random insults. Just look above your comment and you'll see what I mean. And as you say I've been accused of saying that mp3s aren't lossy about half a dozen times now! It doesn't bother me tho, I still try to explain my point.
