|
|
Posted by Zilbandy on 07/04/07 17:45
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:34:51 +0100, "§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t"
<§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t@norway_coastline.net> wrote:
>128 is so diabolically compressed that much of the detail of the track is
>lost, rather like listening to a cassette tape. Nothing resembling CD
>quality.
I can only hear about 8khz with right ear, left ear goes to around
13khz. Do you feel 128kbps is adequate for MY hearing. Obviously, I'll
be missing the ambiance that the higher frequencies might provide to
someone with decent ears, but that's what happens when you get old.
LOL
>BUT, it all depends on how you listen to it, if you use a sound card and
>computer speakers, you will not even be in a position to judge the
>difference.
I'm taking my sound card out to an old Kenwood 80w(rms)/channel amp
and feeding an even older pair (probably 35 years old) of 12" 3 way
speakers. I believe they were Sanyo's, but the speaker grill and name
plate are long gone now. They look like hell, but they don't rattle or
buzz and still sound decent to me.
One other thing I should have mentioned is that most of my music is
from the 50's through the 70's... so the potential sound quality is
most likely lacking from the beginning. (Another reason I still feel
ok about using 128 kbps)
>To extract the sound from the computer you need a digital to analogue
>converter or better still a device that gives you an optical output that you
>can plug directly into a decent quality audio system.
Covered this already, although what you consider decent today is
probably like comparing my system to a clock radio. But, back in it's
day, it was 'decent'. :)
>To convert 320 files to 128, you need to convert back to a WAV file and then
>reconvert to 128, both processes lose quality and detail, imagine buying a
>CD, recording it to a cassette, then doing an analogue copy of that cassette
>before listening to it, that is basically what you will be doing.
I have Cool Edit Pro and Gold Wave v5 for my main audio programs. Both
give me similar results as far as my hearing goes when converting from
320 to 128. I'm more familiar with Cool Edit.
>It is of course entirely up to you, but if you do this, please make sure
>that the resulting adulterated files are NOT shared, and do not end up
>polluting the Internet.
Now, if no one shared their lower quality recordings, I wouldn't have
a lot of stuff that I currently have. My thought on that is if you
don't like what's offered, you don't have to download it. :) If I find
something that stirs memories of my youth and it's only available at
::gasp:: 96kbps, I'll take it over not having it at all. YMMV :)
--
Zilbandy
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|