Jump to content

Mike featured in documentary, "The Distortion of Sound"


Recommended Posts

That's so I can fit 740 songs on my phone.

How often do you actually need 740 songs? Even on my computer I have access to a few million song titles because of Spotify but at most I am listening to like 3-4 albums and a playlists with my current favorite songs (so maybe another 40 tracks).

 

I am pretty sure you don't listen to more than 10-20% of your stuff and the quality you miss out because you want that many songs is definitely audible and not worth it ;)

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It make me nervous, how people can be so stupid and think, that they can convert compressed mp3 to flac or wav and they have better quality (or even original quality). That's impossible. You can't extract the better quality from compressed audio or video file.

It make me nervous, how people can be so stupid and think, that they can convert compressed mp3 to flac or wav and they have better quality (or even original quality). That's impossible. You can't extract the better quality from compressed audio or video file.

 

You have to listen to vinyl or even CD if you want a better quality than mp3's, FLAC, wav, etc.

Can't believe Shinoda is in this hypocritical piece of crap. The artists are basically bashing everything they make money with these days. The examples shown between uncompressed and compressed are simply not true, first of all it's a comparison between uncompressed and a very high compression and the shown waveform is not even affected by this. It's not only uncompressed but also before they brickwall the music. All this stuff gets cut of anyway from making the music so loud.

Also nobody ever mentions any other compression than mp3. mp3 is from the 90's and that the technology stopped there is simply not true either. Just cause mp3's is the most commonly used doesn't mean it's still the best one.

They just act like itunes and all the streaming services are using 128 kbit/s mp3's and since the walkman came out people have been listening to music through shitty earphones anyway lol. Lots of services offer lossless music, no one mentions that either.

 

mp3 wasnt invented to make music shitty. It was invented to make it smaller because the internet was slow as hell over 10 years ago and you couldnt send a 60 mb uncompressed wave file around the world

Can't believe Shinoda is in this hypocritical piece of crap. The artists are basically bashing everything they make money with these days. The examples shown between uncompressed and compressed are simply not true, first of all it's a comparison between uncompressed and a very high compression and the shown waveform is not even affected by this. It's not only uncompressed but also before they brickwall the music. All this stuff gets cut of anyway from making the music so loud.

Also nobody ever mentions any other compression than mp3. mp3 is from the 90's and that the technology stopped there is simply not true either. Just cause mp3's is the most commonly used doesn't mean it's still the best one.

They just act like itunes and all the streaming services are using 128 kbit/s mp3's and since the walkman came out people have been listening to music through shitty earphones anyway lol. Lots of services offer lossless music, no one mentions that either.

 

mp3 wasnt invented to make music shitty. It was invented to make it smaller because the internet was slow as hell over 10 years ago and you couldnt send a 60 mb uncompressed wave file around the world

The documentary is made by Harman. Harman makes high-end audio equipment. LP are the newest spokespeople for Harman. This is all about money and trying to sell a company's products.

 

A preview of this documentary was shown before the LP Harman show in Vegas back in January, BTW. Nobody seemed to really take notice for some reason.

Right, that explains a lot, shitty compressed music will still sound shitty with a super expensive harman system ^^

Harman's pushing a new line of audio equipment with "Signal Doctor" technology built into it, which they claim can "restore" the lost frequencies in compressed music (which I don't believe for a second). I wouldn't be surprised if this "documentary" is nothing more than a long-form advertisement for Signal Doctor.

They just act like itunes and all the streaming services are using 128 kbit/s mp3's and since the walkman came out people have been listening to music through shitty earphones anyway lol. Lots of services offer lossless music, no one mentions that either.

 

 

In this material, they presented people as idiots who listen to music via walkmen with the shitty sound quality.

Harman's pushing a new line of audio equipment with "Signal Doctor" technology built into it, which they claim can "restore" the lost frequencies in compressed music (which I don't believe for a second). I wouldn't be surprised if this "documentary" is nothing more than a long-form advertisement for Signal Doctor.

That's some CSI technology right there haha. You can't restore what's lost/was never there. Maybe they use something that fakes it that you get the impression, similar to SRS and all that crap claims to make it sound better.

 

This reminds me of those fancy gold conductor cables or high speed HDMI cables, whatever you need those for.

 

I have to say the "bobbing heads" test is seriously the funniest thing in the entire documentary.

I watched this movie, sounded like meaningless bullshit to me. They don't say anything interesting in this just obivious things like "music great" "playing on instrument is awesome" and they whining about "compression is bad" and etc.

I laughed when they made a comparisation between original and compressed audio, and they shown some brickwalled crap as "compressed". :lol: :lol:

Brickwalling sound is compression too but not data compression, they completely ignore that.

Yes, it's dynamic compression, but they referred this thing as data compression when they shown examples. So that's why I said I can't take this movie seriously. Actually you already heard the lossy compressed version because you listened on Youtube. :D

They showed some footage of Rob we didn't see before.

I would say it's not that much about the quality of music you listen to, it's more about equipment you use to listen to it. You can feel a big difference even on a 64kb/s track. I recommend Koss Porta Pro headphones, they are the only good quality headphones that are cheap. And the soundcard in your computer or phone should be good too.

The quality of the file it's self is necessary mostly for intesive listening to a track. I downloaded THP in 320kb/s a few days fter it leaked, and then I got THP for my birthday a few days ago. And I must say, the difference is big. On the original I could easily hear the tamburinos attached to snare in Mark The Graves, and the whole album sounded better. So I think they are partly right

 

EDIT: I just listened to my THP, and just after it ended, I listened to ALITS on YT, and I must admit, that I know what they meant. YT quality sound like a stinky shit compared to original quality.

Edited by TheDamian58C

You can't really compare a leak to the CD you bought later. You need to rip your CD and compare that directly. For Youtube it depends massively in what quality you "watch" it, there's a huge difference between 720p and below. Even official youtube videos have screwed up sound sometimes, the Rebellion lyrics video for example.


Actually you already heard the lossy compressed version because you listened on Youtube. :D

That's just like the commercials for HDTV on SDTV xD

You can't really compare a leak to the CD you bought later. You need to rip your CD and compare that directly. For Youtube it depends massively in what quality you "watch" it, there's a huge difference between 720p and below. Even official youtube videos have screwed up sound sometimes, the Rebellion lyrics video for example.

 

 

In my opinion, if you rip the song from your CD (for example 320kbps) and if you upload it on youtube the quality will be worse. It's the same when you upload HD movie, or any other material. Your video on youtube will have always little weak quality of that on your computer. You can check that by downloading your video from yt and compare the size of that file with the size of the file on your computer. It will never be the same.

Edited by martinez

 

In my opinion, if you rip the song from your CD (for example 320kbps) and if you upload it on youtube the quality will be worse. It's the same when you upload HD movie, or any other material. Your video on youtube will have always little weak quality of that on your computer. You can check that by downloading your video from yt and compare the size of that file with the size of the file on your computer. It will never be the same.

not an opinion, it's a fact. Every time compression is applied you lose quality, that's normal. Youtube's main purpose is still videos and not high quality sound, otherwise it would be way too easy to just download the music from there in the best quality. Youtube doesn't use the maximum possible quality for AAC audio to keep it good enough but not perfect.

 

My point is, if you want to compare uncompressed to compressed it has to be fair. Compare wave/flac with mp3 from the same source (CD etc.). The leak I had sounded like garbage too, it was in 192 kbit/s and still sounded pretty bad for this bitrate. Often lower quality stuff just gets converted to 320 that more people download it.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...