I cant listen to 128kbps mp3's[views:4053][posts:19]____________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:05pm - handinjury ""] I already dislike mp3 format as it is, but I download the new Disavowed, and then I heard that shitty washy hi-end and overall flubby shit sound. And what do you know, its 128kbps mp3's. Uhhhh........... How can people listen to that shit? Really? Its crap! Anything under 192 I will not listen to. I got an Ipod, and my buddy said "dude, you can load that w/20 gigs of music, thats a decent chuck of your cd collection". I said "what are you high? I aint gonna put mp3's on this , its wavs only". I listen to podcasts in mp3, because its just people talking. Mp3's are ruining music quality, why bother getting your bands cd mastered, when people will just convert to mp3 and totally kill the quality and make the audio so flaccid and lifeless. "Oh wow, I have 100 albums of shitty mp3's on my Ipod, its so cool, I am like a walking jukebox".:gun: And dont get me started on the loudness war................ |
| ______________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:13pm - the_reverend ""] CDs ruin the quality too. |
| __________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:13pm - metalguy ""] Why the fuck would you use the .wav format when you could possibly use a form of lossless compression? |
| __________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:17pm - sinistas ""] Yeah, FLAC, and SHN ftmfw. |
| ____________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:26pm - handinjury ""] the_reverend said:CDs ruin the quality too. From what?(unless your talking about analog tape) If the music was recorded digital(16/24 bit, 44.1 - 192kHz), then the cd is the final output. I cant wait till cds are 24bit cd. |
| ____________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:27pm - handinjury ""] metalguy said:Why the fuck would you use the .wav format when you could possibly use a form of lossless compression? I do, wav lossless. |
| ______________________________________ [May 31,2007 6:44pm - the_reverend ""] funny DAT's can record 96khz @ 24bits. turning 96khz @ 24bits into 44.1khz @ 16bits sounds to me like you are losing quality. Also, going from analog to record is a lot better. |
| ____________________________________ [May 31,2007 7:02pm - handinjury ""] the_reverend said:funny DAT's can record 96khz @ 24bits. turning 96khz @ 24bits into 44.1khz @ 16bits sounds to me like you are losing quality. Also, going from analog to record is a lot better. Of course they can, they are partialy DIGITAL(digital audio tape) But cds are ONLY 16/44.1. You cant play a 24bit file in windows meda player, nor will a cd play anything other than 44.1/16 bit. Every recording studio records at 24 bit and anywhere from 48.1 to 192khz, but in the end it has to get dithered to 16 bit, and downsampled to 44.1= cd format. Downsampling from 96kHz to 44.1 is not as EXTREME as taking a 44.1/16bit and creating a 128kbps mp3, the compression is just ludicrous. |
| ______________________________________ [May 31,2007 7:35pm - the_reverend ""] um... so if microsoft can't do it, then it's ok? I'm pretty sure my audiology card can do 24bit @ 96Khz. that makes CDs sound terrible doesn't it? people give up quality for convince. |
| ____________________________________ [May 31,2007 9:21pm - handinjury ""] the_reverend said:um... so if microsoft can't do it, then it's ok? I'm pretty sure my audiology card can do 24bit @ 96Khz. that makes CDs sound terrible doesn't it? people give up quality for convince. I have know clue where your going w/ this Revered "Asian", or perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am all for higher bit depths and sample rates. I would bust a nut for a 24/96 audio cd. I dislike low grade mp3's, peeps listening to mp3s on there celly, like its great. "people give up quality for convince" - Thats the problem, quality comes 1st to me. And stop replying with "um....." :HUMP: (edit: only 1 time, my bad) |
| __________________________________ [May 31,2007 9:23pm - Archaeon ""] The production on the new disavowed isn't particularly impressive in the first place. the dl i got was at 256 |
| ____________________________________ [May 31,2007 9:26pm - handinjury ""] Archaeon said:The production on the new disavowed isn't particularly impressive in the first place. the dl i got was at 256 Rahhhh, you bastid!!! I want! |
| __________________________________ [May 31,2007 9:57pm - Archaeon ""] i posted a thread with the DL link |
| _____________________________________ [May 31,2007 10:50pm - handinjury ""] Archaeon said:i posted a thread with the DL link Thanks dude.:NEWHORNS: |
| ________________________________ [May 31,2007 10:57pm - Troll ""] I fuckin' hate digital period. |
| _______________________________________ [May 31,2007 11:24pm - the_reverend ""] you have a digital period? |
| __________________________________ [May 31,2007 11:25pm - sxealex ""] u guys are all pussies. digital and anal-log suck for diffferent reasons. they are also awesome for different reasons. live is sweet. but recordings are great too. distortion/clarity/analog/digital/lossless/lossy/tape/vinyl/optical/gain/eq/flat/monitor/blah/shut/up i listen to shit at 80kbps granted 192 sounds better no point in crying about it. |
| ________________________________ [May 31,2007 11:50pm - Troll ""] sxealex said:u guys are all pussies. We are what we eat. |
| ___________________________________ [May 31,2007 11:58pm - metalguy ""] handinjury said:metalguy said:Why the fuck would you use the .wav format when you could possibly use a form of lossless compression? I do, wav lossless. You are right, wav is lossless. But there are other forms of compression that will get the file size down to a comparable number to mp3. A FLAC file should be no more than 5 megabytes? |
| _________________________________ [Jun 1,2007 12:08am - sxealex ""] Troll said:sxealex said:u guys are all pussies. We are what we eat. u can eat it...ill be fuckin it. |