|
|
|
MP3's
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. June 2005 @ 11:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
AAC is not really that impressive. It can obtain higher quality at lower bitrates, but its still lossy. and it has all that DRM-copyprotection crap in it. If you want to experiement with other codecs, try FLAC, OGG, or MPC
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. June 2005 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
...it has all that DRM-copyprotection crap in it
Are you saying you don't want to support AAC because its capable of incorporating DRM protection? The unprotected raw AAC files don't have any DRM protection. MP4 files do however. Only when the raw AAC file is taged with an m4p tag, is it protected. The m4a movement (the one I preffer over Mp3) has nothing to do with DRM and can be played on any machine capable of playing AAC files. They can be created and shared just like Mp3's are now.
Unlike rain2, I would rather see MPC get some TLC from a major manufacure than AAC. I like MPC because it is fully tranparent (at least it tries to be).
@ scoop,
You made a statment in another thread asking if MP3 predates MPC (while I was away). Technically MPC is older than MP3 since its based on the original MP2 work done by the MPEG (as MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#History
@ rain,
Check out the audio format work done by these guys:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18397
@ All AD Members,
Lean about MPC!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPC_%28audio_compression_format%29
:),
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. June 2005 @ 12:14
|
|
rain2
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. June 2005 @ 10:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
@ rain,
Check out the audio format work done by these guys:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18397
Well, I checked (their thread is 1.5 years old...):
Quote:
Unfortunately WinABX froze, and this log can only shows my miserable attempts to succeed again after running it for the second time. It's 4 AM and I will probably quit now...
I had 2 bottles of wine just now, but I will give it a shot anyway...
As I said in the mpc thread, losless is beyond any discussion.
Therefore I use APE, ~1000 CDs fit on a 300GB drive, that's enough.
No pre-echo, no noisy spektral pollution. Just the unaltered original.
Due to the bad SNR (less than 20 dB above 3kHz) of MPC (see MPC thread: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/198521), the smaller pre-echo alone of MPC is no reason to tell that it's transparent, the pre-echo is only shorter (it is still block processed).
Some few HW players accept flac or wma-lossless now, and iPods play AppleLossless, so the times are not so bad these days.
And coverting between lossless formats is - lossless! :-)
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. June 2005 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Well, I checked (their thread is 1.5 years old...):
"If I can see where you come from, It will give me a better idea of where your going"
Ced
|
|
inamm
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. June 2005 @ 07:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Honestly I have to say that weazel200 has spoken my words! That is so true...I listen to mp3's all the time and i have to say that i think the mp3 sounds even better then the original!
REMOVED LINK
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. June 2005 @ 10:09
|
Staff Member
|
27. June 2005 @ 10:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
@inamm, URL has nothing to do with the thread, therefore we'll see it as advertising (since its not in a sign or anything), advertising without permission is against the rules.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. June 2005 @ 17:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
i think the mp3 sounds even better then the original!
LOL well I wouldn't go THAT far, but it is definately true that when properly encoding the mp3 files (EAC/LAME@256 VBR) you will produce suprisingly good quality files as far as mp3s go.
This is one of those threads that can go on and on and debate about one format to the next, but in reality no one is going to agree because everybody has their favorite format. someone earlier mentioned wma (YUCK), Ced likes MPC, and for me, mp3s just for playing on the computer are still decent enough quality for me. When I want to crank music loud and listen to good quality stuff I either go put put on some vinyl or pop in a SACD...
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. June 2005 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mp3s (and other lossy format) do sound good but will never match the warmth of the original, somthing you can enjoy while listening to the music and just the music, nothing else. You also got to have the right hardware (receiver, speakers, cables, ect...).
<off-topic>
Which sounds better Vinyl Records, or SACD and/or DVD-Audio?
I don't really have the right equipment to fully appreciate SACD or DVD-Audio, but I must say that Vinyl Records sound wonderfull. The reason i'm asking is because I am very intrested in high fedelity audio and would like the opinion of people of AD. My main question is, even if SACD sound better than Vinyl records, (which sound better than CD's and thus Mp3 and other formats aswell) will that be enough of a reason for everyday consumers to support the formats when they can get all of there music off the internet (legally and/or illegaly)?
</off-topic>
Ced?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. June 2005 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am a huge fan of vinyl and other analog formats. as great as high quality digital formats are, nothing compares to a warm analog sound of vinyl or a nice reel-to-reel machine. I mainly collect classical, jazz, and classic rock LPs, but I also have some newer ones (my prized possesion is Green Day's entire collection all on vinyl...don't ask how long it took to find or how much it costs.) The cool thing is that people still play vinyl, and new vinyl is currently being printed. But if you ever get a chance to listen to a good vinyl record paired to a tube-amplifier, its like heaven to your ears.
I also really like SACD just because in my opinion its the closest digital recordings come to sounding like analog. When SACD came out a few years ago, Sony was so concerned about it being ripped or copied because the quality is so close to that of actual studio quality sound that the first gen SACD players, like the one I have (which cost over $3000) only has analog outputs. But now I believe the new ones have digital outputs as well because Sony has developed some type of copy protection. That and there's currently no way to copy SACDs on computer either. But SACD is great because you can find all kinds of music which has been remastered in surround sound, which is a definite plus over vinyl.
Speaking of which, I just saw an ad in a magazine the other day (popular science I think) for a record player that uses lasers to read the grooves off of the vinyl! It looks like a laser-disc machine and you plop the LP in it and the lasers don't touch the record, thus preserving it. I thought it was so cool, I'd never thought of it. But at $2000 I think I'll stick with good ol' needle players for now.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 03:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
So to fully enjoy the best sounding music you have also got to spend alot on decent sounding equipment.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 12:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
well you don't have to, but it definately helps. its kinda like putting 110 octane racing gas into a ford pinto...whats the point? you can have great quality media, but you need a good complete system to continue the good quality, from media to preamp, to amp, to speakers.
so no, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on a high end system, but you do need at least something mid-end to enjoy good quality audio. For audio receivers my favorite is Onkyo
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
If I had that kinda equipment my neighbours would start a petition to get me kicked out. Have ue ever done a mix compilation yourself scoop.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
well sort of. In my DJing days I wasn't like a actual mixing DJ or anyting. I DJ'd countless weddings for several years, but I never got into spinning turntables or anything.
I do make my own mixes for myself to listen to, but I do them in pro tools, so not really DJing. I've always wanted to learn to scratch and mix but never had the time or patience. geestar is a really good DJ though...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
What music do you mix in pro tools. any dance or mainly rock
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. June 2005 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
well I mainly use Pro Tools to record ADR (voice dialog) and foley sound effects which I use for teaching and for students to use for projects. But whenever I make mixes in Pro Tools its just usually whatever is new out and I throw in some old stuff I haven't heard in a while. I give them stupid names like "Beats for the Geeks on the Streets" or something lame like that....but usually its rock, as that is my fav genre. Also electronic, and classic rock
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. June 2005 @ 20:37 |
Link to this message
|
Yea, I ran into the laser vinyl readers back when I started tranfering my moms old LPs to CD. I wonder how they sound. I mean if a laser is reading the groves does that mean that the proccess is relying on ADCs? Wouldn't that sound worse (if only slightly) than the analog version?
The only thing I could think of is they are using some type of hardware that can read the grooves like a photo (looking for the absence of light) and perfectly mimic their movments in real time. I'll do some research into how this stuff works for myself (and share what I find off course).
---LATER---
This stuff is crazy. This model cost $15,000!
How it works:
http://www.elpj.com/about/how.html
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. June 2005 @ 20:53
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. June 2005 @ 11:13 |
Link to this message
|
yeah I'm honestly not sure what to think. Its adding a digital spin to vinyl I guess. It uses five lasers to read. As neat as it seems, like you said $15000 is just a TAD steep.
I think this is the same site as the one you posted Ced, but this is address in the magazine I saw.
http://audioturntable.com/
Hopefully some day they will come down in price though. But who knows, vinyl may be all but extinct by that time. I'm not really sure about the A/D convertion, it obviously must have some type of signal converters and processors in it. I really didn't look into it that much, but I'll review the website more when I get a chance. The one distinct advantage obviously is that the lasers don't touch the record, thus preserving it and extenting the life of vinyl exponentially.
typo
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. June 2005 @ 11:14
|
|
TahoeGuy
Newbie
|
3. July 2005 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've got to tell you, EAC may be a really nice program, but it is really proving to be a pain in the a$$, trying to get it set up!
I downloaded EAC and it didn't ask me where to put it, but instead put it on my desktop when i'd have prefered to have it in C:\Program Files\Exact Audio Copy\ as the info in "The Quintessential Guide to Creating High Quality MP3s by Chris Myden" says it should be created.
Then I downloaded LAME which, again, didn't give me a chance to specify the directory it was placed in, but instead, put it on my desktop.
I then ran EAC which opened a "LAME" configuration window, but neither the search feature (which finds no LAME exe file) or the browse feature (which won't find it either) lets me get past this window!! But if I do a search for "LAME" i can find lame.exe with no problems!
What am I doing wrong here?? or is EAC just primarily for people with alot of computer smarts? It's certainly not touted as such!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. July 2005 @ 14:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
okay EAC is really not that hard to use. yes it is a little more complicated than other rippers, but that is because it has many more features. those problems you mentioned are very small and aren't really problems, more like annoyances.
I don't know why the guide says it will install under programs directory, no version of EAC I've ever used does. Is it really that big of a deal? Just make a folder called EAC under program files, and unzip there. Same with the LAME dll. don't put it on your desktop, unzip/install it in the same folder EAC is in, that way everything is in the same place. So now when you go to find lame in the external compression tab, just type in C:\Program Files\EAC\lame.exe. Thats not that much stuff to type that you have to paste the location.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
TahoeGuy
Newbie
|
4. July 2005 @ 00:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks djscoop! I'll give it a go! :)
|
|
