Coizu Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikolajlaulp Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Tell me again, why i need to listen to ALTNC in high quality. It's not going to get better because of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpaw262 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Which LP songs sound the best in their uncompressed form? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) No one listens to 128 kbps mp3's, except for Geki. If you want to buy me the new Harman equipment, you can and then I will be able to enjoy all my music the way that Mike is talking about. Edited July 12, 2014 by Geki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinez Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinez Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 You have to listen to vinyl or even CD if you want a better quality than mp3's, FLAC, wav, etc. And I know that a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpaw262 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 My phone does not like 24 bit WAV files. The playback skips every so often, and makes my phone freeze up. Even completely stops the playback. Good thing for a removable battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astat Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Right, that explains a lot, shitty compressed music will still sound shitty with a super expensive harman system ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astat Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrandnewname Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 All my music is converted to 96 kbps, it saves a lot of space on my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinez Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPMaskMan Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Brickwalling sound is compression too but not data compression, they completely ignore that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPMaskMan Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedamian58c Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) 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 July 12, 2014 by TheDamian58C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. That's just like the commercials for HDTV on SDTV xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotrix Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinez Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) 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 July 13, 2014 by martinez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydlp Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Such a pointless "documentary" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 If people are so concerned about listening to high quality music why do they even bother with digital files? I would expect those people only listening to their vinyls or purchased CD's on their high quality systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[AndOne] Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.