Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. -- Les Cargill |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ? geoff |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
In article ,
Les Cargill wrote: Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. As I said, it depends entirely on the source material and the playback equipment. What is most weird is that sometimes poorer quality playback equipment can exaggerate artifacts. If you have a frequency range boosted on playback, stuff in that range that might have been masked by other frequencies can become audible. Perceptual encoding is only a good idea for final release over limited bandwidth channels... it just plain does not work if any additional processing is to be done. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
geoff wrote:
On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote: Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ? geoff Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or take. I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost? -- Les Cargill |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
geoff wrote: On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote: Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ? geoff Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or take. I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost? To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss ! geoff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
320 kbps MP3
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:37:25 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote: geoff wrote: On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote: Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging. Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me. If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ? geoff Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or take. I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost? To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss ! Okay. First, a dynamic boost, followed by equalization. I do the dynamic boost when I'm faced with a few peaks holding back amplitude. I wish I had the hearing of you experts, but you don't post a thing, so I can criticize your audio work, if any... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...tgethooked.mp3 Jack geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|