|
HIgh-quality cd audio?
|
|
|
Mr_Mister
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. September 2003 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Something I've been wondering about... are there any options for high-quality CD (CD-RW or CD-R)?
I know I can burn high-quality MP3's as audio tracks, but how about something comparable to DVD-A (like surround sound encoded or something along those lines)?
IBM Aptiva E2N
400 AMD K6 3D processor (changed from 266 to 400 ... 66.5% increase!)
128 megs RAM
4 gig HDD
Internal: 8X Hitachi CDR-7980 (it's not a burner)
External: 4X/4X/24X USB CD-Writer+ 8200 (HP)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
15. September 2003 @ 20:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. September 2003 @ 20:32
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. September 2003 @ 23:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
High qulaity MP3?? Is there such a thing lol
|
|
Mr_Mister
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. September 2003 @ 00:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmmm... gonna have to check that out.
I'm not sure if I have a stereo that could play something like that back or not, but it's worth a shot!
I think my little stereo might be able to... using it to watch movies, it does do surround sound (although it doesn't say anything about surround sound on it) through 6 speakers (2 front satellites, 2 main speakers with built-in subs, and 2 rear speakers).
If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see what kind of maddness I can come up with (Pink Floyd in surround sound).
While I'm here, is the CD of The Who's Quadrophenia actually remastered in quadrophonic or just regular stereo?
IBM Aptiva E2N
400 AMD K6 3D processor (changed from 266 to 400 ... 66.5% increase!)
128 megs RAM
4 gig HDD
Internal: 8X Hitachi CDR-7980 (it's not a burner)
External: 4X/4X/24X USB CD-Writer+ 8200 (HP)
|
|
Prisoner
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. September 2003 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought mp3's at 320 where "high quality" as they have the least amount of lossy compression or none at all. Is this a true statement?
I am not a number
I am a Free Man
 |
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. September 2003 @ 15:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
MP3 are never going to be a high quality sound, though at 320 or even 192 they are better than the average 128. For High Quality audio, you really need to go into DVD-A transfer from Vinyl. Im only a learner in it, but Wilkes, A_Klingon or Tigre would know a lot more.
|
|
Mr_Mister
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. September 2003 @ 23:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Is there a way to tell (before downloading those programs mentioned above) if my stereo would be capable of playing a disc made with those?
'Cause I'm not sure if it plays movies in "true" surround (DTS, etc.) or if it's just simulated surround sound... I've never hooked a DVD player up to it, so I can't be sure.
But, yeah... I'll give it a go and see within the next few days (I'll have some time on my hands... got a flat on my bike, so I won't be going anyplace for awhile).
IBM Aptiva E2N
400 AMD K6 3D processor (changed from 266 to 400 ... 66.5% increase!)
128 megs RAM
4 gig HDD
Internal: 8X Hitachi CDR-7980 (it's not a burner)
External: 4X/4X/24X USB CD-Writer+ 8200 (HP)
|
|
tigre
Moderator
|
18. September 2003 @ 12:19 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
MP3 are never going to be a high quality sound, though at 320 or even 192 they are better than the average 128. For High Quality audio, you really need to go into DVD-A transfer from Vinyl.
1. Given you use great headphones for testing, have gifted hearing and a lot of training in hearing artifacts, you will be able to spot a difference between CD and lame --alt-preset insane encoded mp3s (=320kbps) in maybe 10% of songs. Unless it's a known problem sample it'll probably take hours to find and verify a noticable difference somewhere in a song. When you listen to a whole song at once, it's most likely impossible to tell for sure if it's CD or mp3.
2. There's still no proof (= double blind test at equal conditions) that anyone can hear a difference between 24/96 and CD audio.
So until it's proven wrong, IMO using resolutions higher than CD audio sounds better because it gives a warm fuzzy (maybe elitist or something) feeling. What separates 320kbps mp3s from perfect is something between "nothing" and "awfully small" so 320kbps mp3s can be certainly called "high quality".
I'd like to invite everyone here to participate at rjamorim's 64kbps listening test: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=13127&
In many cases hearing the differences original <-> encoded will be very easy but in some cases you will be surprised how hard it is to find a difference even at 64kbps.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. September 2003 @ 12:23
|
|
Prisoner
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. September 2003 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think with sound it does really depend on what your listening to. If you want Nirvana, Sex pistols, Generation X, or Iggy Pop then Mp3`s is probally the highest quality that you would need. However listen to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky, I think you will notice a significant difference in sound quality. I wouldn`t say I am gifted in hearing, but I can pick out instruments in orchestra pieces and if a sound recording inhibits me from doing it, I don`t consider it high quality. I don`t mention Mosart, because I don`t like Mosart and think way to over played and not good.
About Headphones, a really good set that are about $200 make a huge difference. I was amazed listen to Bjork though standard $20 headphones and then listen to her on my friends headphones. I was better than my expensive speakers and much more depth from the CD recording in DDD could be heard. So the Amp, mixer and speakers make a huge difference in comparing sound quality. I haven`t yet, but would hate to read some say no difference on a Citizen or Emerson system. Thes CD players lazer are garbage, and don`t have soldered connections on the boards. If you really want to compare use a Bang and olufsen stereo system, with quality lazers and amps that actually can proccess all the sound.
I am not a number
I am a Free Man
|
|
tigre
Moderator
|
19. September 2003 @ 08:01 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I think with sound it does really depend on what your listening to. If you want Nirvana, Sex pistols, Generation X, or Iggy Pop then Mp3`s is probally the highest quality that you would need. However listen to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky, I think you will notice a significant difference in sound quality.
Hmm ... I have performed many of tests mp3 vs. CD using mostly Sennheiser HD540 headphones. What I wrote in my last post is not based on thoughts or guesses but on experience by me and others. Generally classic music with accoustic instruments is easier to encode than rock, heavy and similar with distorted guitars, lots of cymbal/hihat-like drums.
I don't want to start a discussion based on oppinions, I just wanted to make sure that people reading this thread know that "mp3 is crap compared to high-res DVD-A"-like statements are not proven to be true so far.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. September 2003 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I just wanted to make sure that people reading this thread know that "mp3 is crap compared to high-res DVD-A"-like statements are not proven to be true so far.
Come on now - if we had a choice between mp3 and High Res audio such as 24/96 DVDA, you know that the DVDA will be the better choice.
Also, what do you think of your Sennheiser HD540 headphones? I was under the impression that you got less low range sound out of them due to the fact the are open around the ear. I personally like reference speakers that are leather and completely enclosed. I have a pair of Philips Studio Reference that give amazing bass and definition.
|
|
tigre
Moderator
|
19. September 2003 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Come on now - if we had a choice between mp3 and High Res audio such as 24/96 DVDA, you know that the DVDA will be the better choice.
This has not much to do with my statement you quoted, but anyway ...
- I would never buy mp3s or mp3 sourced audio CDs as I want the uncompressed original (at whatever resolution) to compress to different formats depending on the purpose (listening in car, listening on PC, backup storage ...)
- I don't think I will ever buy DVD-A either. I can't create backups, ripping + encoding for portable use (e.g. car CD player) is a pain in the a***.
- If there would be a copyable, open (e.g. PC playback possible) high resolution format at the same price as CD - why not?
Quote:
Also, what do you think of your Sennheiser HD540 headphones? I was under the impression that you got less low range sound out of them due to the fact the are open around the ear.
I'm impressed again and again. I've seen some frequency plots (can't find them right now) that are flat down to ~20 Hz. Most cheap soundcards or portables don't have enough power to drive them resulting in a lack of low frequencies. With a preamp or a good soundcard they sound great. AFAIK comparable closed headphones can sound louder/need less power because more of the sound energy produced by the drivers reachs the ear, but on the other hand reflections caused by closed design can cause problems.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
12. October 2003 @ 03:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mr_Mister - to the best of my knowledge, the Who's Quadrophenia album was never mastered in Quadrophonic (i.e. 4-channel) sound. It was/is simply the title of the album.
But I would be willing to bet that the original studio master was (by default) multi-channel in nature, and could easily be re-mixed into Quad or 5.1 surround.
|
|
Mr_Mister
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. October 2003 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
From what my dad has said, the original record album (yeah... the vinyl things that were read with a needle) was recorded in true quadrophonic (different sounds coming from all 4 speakers... it would only play on quadrophonic phonographs).
I'm just wondering if the CD of Quadrohenia is in quadrophonic same as the original record. Or would that be beyond the caabilities of a regular CD?
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
13. October 2003 @ 19:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, your father could easily be right, because back about that time, there were 4-channel vinyl records being released, but there is no mention of a Quad release for this title on www.allmusic.com. I had the album myself, but it was only a stereo version.
Quad records needed a special cartridge because the two 'extra' channels were encoded ('matrixed') at frequencies above human hearing, and so required a decoder as well. They came in two non-compatible flavours - "SQ" and "QS".
The name "Quadrophenia" on the album comes from the lead character in the Rock Opera, who had a four-way split personality.
No, I've never heard of a four-channel music cd.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Pio2001
Moderator
|
23. October 2003 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
The red book allows 4 channels audio CD, IIRC, but no player nor CD was ever released that supported this option to my knowledge.
|
