Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Urinal Mint, Nov 25, 2003.
No? OK, then they can fuck off.
Do they offer full albums for $7? No? OK, then they can fuck off.
And this needed its own thread why?
I wanted to see my signature again
why in the world would you pay even SEVEN dollars for horrible quality and something thats not tangible at all? pay 3-4 more bucks and get the actual cd.
and if you say that 192kbps is good quality I'll laugh. I dont care how well it's done. I'm sure it sounds "good" on your computers or your stock car stereo but it will sound like shit on anything decent.
Oh. Fair enough
I've invested enough in my audio equipment and can say that 192kbit Lame VBR alt.preset.extreme will be difficult to distinguish even on high-dollar reference systems.
simply hilarious. so the HUGE difference I hear between CD and vinyl or CD and sacd is all in my head then right? I mean... if there was no difference between a mp3 @ 192kbps and redbook audio... why in the WORLD would there be a difference between redbook and something even MORE high resolution.
some people are so oblivious its funny. how bout just say "yeah thats cool... but I don't hear any difference between 192kbps and CD" why act like you're a pro when you're really not?
its like someone who starts to get into cars.... and they hang out with a bunch of honda owners and learn a few things about hondas. suddenly they are car experts and they know EVERYTHING about cars
Your right, it would be VERY hard to distinguish altpreset extreme from the source, even with a super duper stereo setup.
I had a test on OT a few months back with 2 files, 2 were the source wave and the other two were mp3s encoded with lame alt preset insane and i gave them random filenames. I then posted them on OT and had people guess which was which at random. One person got them right (out of around 30) before I gave the answers right, and it was most likely that he either looked at the filesizes or used a waveform analyzer to see which was which.
The main problem though is that MOST of those that say mp3 sounds like ass or whatever won't take the test, for fear that they will get it wrong or something
Yeah, but your test was with 320 kpbs mp3 vs. uncompressed CD, not 192. pretty big difference.
I dunno why I thought that was so funny, but it was
ATTN: Urinal Mint
Stop typing above the quote.
192kbit is almost identical to CD quality. Almost completely undistinguishable to untrained ears. Even on high dollar systems.
I'm not sure what you're refering to, but i think you meant "--alt-preset standard".
Everyone Else: it's a LAME 3.9x flag, a standard equilization output flag just says to not do anything gay to the wav when compressing it.
it is quite disturbing
All these cheap ass fuckers driving around in M3s and their to fucking cheap to buy a CD.
...and if you're worried about CD vs MP3 quality just download CD ISO's for the picky audiophyle...
I'm guessing you don't know much about Lame VBR encoding?
Where can you find stuff like this? Any particular newsgroups?
I'll make it preset standard or cbr 192 js for the next test then...
Do it 192 VBR a.p.standard
Was he quoting me? (I can't tell, hes on my ignore). Anyways, he can blah blah all day about how bad an mp3 sounds but when it comes down to it, he didnt take my mp3 test and I really doubt he will take one in the future. It would simply shatter his "audiophile" dreams that he couldn't distinguish the two.