It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
That might be because I usually listen to mp3s at that rate on that system, possibly - I may be somehow 'tuned in' to it. Or at low volume it might actually sound better compressed, perhaps...
If I can be bothered I'll stream it to my proper hi-fi at some point when I've forgotten which answer is which. I'm fairly sure I can tell the difference between CD and mp3 on that.
I tend to find the musical content more important anyway.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
The interesting thing about this, to me, is whether you can hear the difference using the system you normally use to listen to music.
And I'll put up 50p and a chunky kitkat that actually you can't reliably tell 320kbps MP3 from WAV or FLAC in a well conducted test.
Had another go with the iPad and an old pair of Sennheiser HD590 headphones
Suzanne vega , Coldplay & Jay z were the ones I got right
With a lot of songs I can't actually tell the difference but I find that quality is most important on Live Recordings.
An ability to hear the difference in pitch between guitar strings is called "playing the guitar and not being deaf".
@Rocker, will you never let it lay down and die? Double blind or it's all me arse and never once do you volunteer...
I think even a moderate quality mp3 is good enough to enjoy the song, although you can tell mp3 files don't sound as good as others.
With that said, is it because they're not mixed for mp3? Is it possible that we can learn to mix for a format better?
With higher quality compression formats, I'd imagine they throw away the very high and very low, mostly the very high as we are unable to detect it. So even if there is a difference, I doubt it is anything worth actually worrying about. Your fans will either like your music or they won't.
This. If you can't hear the difference between two different files storing (and maybe compressing the data within to reduce file sizes) the same source recording, but still enjoy either, then surely it doesn't matter.
That said, a decent hifi is wonderful thing, and brings out all sorts of sounds hidden within the source file that you might never hear on lower quality systems or with lower quality file formats. When you start cutting out data to compress a file you can lose entire instruments or voices that aren't part of the core song but make the listening experience more enjoyable.
If the artist created it, I want to hear it.
Then if you want to hear it as it was created, surely flat studio monitors will reveal all?
I remember listening to a remaster of dark side of the moon and it had more detail and more audible instruments. Sounded wrong to me - I'd heard it on vinyl then cd (which sounded pretty much the same).
But then maybe lots of people prefer the remaster. So does it actually matter?
In fact, it's worse than that - it would be actively counterproductive. This is old but worth reading… by someone who really knows about this stuff:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
(NB despite the link title it's not actually *by* Neil Young .)
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein