| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 111993 | 2010-08-19 07:51:00 | Record/LP player | Fifthdawn (9467) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1129496 | 2010-08-21 05:49:00 | I use flac and i refuse to listen to 128k mp3s. im thinking of getting a good sound card, as im using my onboard and want a good one. any reccomendations? i could always use my old PCI genius sound maker card, but i'm not sure if thats better than realtek ac97 onboard. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1129497 | 2010-08-21 06:23:00 | MP3 sounds crap on my home stereo which is a good old fashioned amp coupled to a decent CD player that doesn't play MP3, the best speakers that I could afford at the time. I also run a computer into the amp for MP3 and film watching (TV goes to the amp too) and I can really tell the difference when listening to MP3 | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1129498 | 2010-08-21 06:26:00 | I use a good old fashioned Amp too. though the cassette player part of it (which is dolby, plays chrome and metal tape, with mic imputs and vu meters) needs fixing as the cassette mechanism has gone stiff :(. i should probaby post a thread about it so somebody can tell me how to fix it. My pc is hooked the the amp, and i use 18yr old Phillips Speakers, which are very good |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1129499 | 2010-08-21 06:46:00 | I use flac and i refuse to listen to 128k mp3s. im thinking of getting a good sound card, as im using my onboard and want a good one. any reccomendations? i could always use my old PCI genius sound maker card, but i'm not sure if thats better than realtek ac97 onboard. The Asus Xonar series are quite good. They are based on the C-Media Oxygen so any card which uses that chipset will be good too. There are also some by M-Audio which should be good. (Check around on pricespy) |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1129500 | 2010-08-21 06:49:00 | thanks for the info :) | goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1129501 | 2010-08-21 06:56:00 | I can remember some many years ago that a Wellington retailer put me off spending really big bucks on a newer sound system by telling me that the average voter over 45 (me, then) would be wasting much of the money because he/she would not hear/appreciate the sound quality. Never found out how true this was but put my wallet away. | Scouse (83) | ||
| 1129502 | 2010-08-21 08:57:00 | That's why I buy the best I can afford and not what everyone else says is the best and costing mega bucks | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1129503 | 2010-08-21 11:44:00 | Might I point out that, as an analogue medium, vinyl has no such absolute value as to the highest audible frequency it can carry, and as such your 'up to 192kHz' claim is complete garbage? May I point out that this statement is incorrect? The highest audible (or any other) frequency that can be impressed upon or played from vinyl is limited by the diameter of the stylus in the vinyl-contact area and the compliance of the cartridge mechanism that allows the stylus to actually follow the impressed track. Anything higher than that is distortion artefacts. The maximum frequency in any particular instance would be determined by the players' instruments, the original response of the cutter during recording, the quality of the master and the subsequent pressings, and finally by the stylus and cartridge combination as mentioned above. Never mind that the average adult ear has a frequency response that cuts off well before 20kHz and is several dbs down by that time as well. We hear what we think we want to hear, as in those who pay premium prices to buy valves that have been specially deep-frozen (yes, really, you send them in, the pop them in the cryogenic chamber, or not, as the case may be! :devil) for their retro amplifiers, which then pump into transformers with magnetising losses and inter-winding capacitances that alter the audio response, followed by acoustic transducers (loudspeakers) with a frequency response plot with more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas and are usually pumping air into a room with more reflections than Marilyn Munroes' bedroom mirror. A top quality disc, stylus, cartridge, turntable, amp and speakers, in a decent listening environment will still sound only as good as the response of the ears of the listener, and that will very rarely approach 18kHz, let alone 20kHz. Dreams may be free, but some people are prepared to pay through the nose for them. Cheers Billy 8-{) :rolleyes: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1129504 | 2010-08-21 16:07:00 | Hang on Billy - any chance you could clarify your meaning a bit? I read your post a few times, and from what I can see we're actually in agreement, and partly talking about the same thing (although you've gone into more detail about the process of an end-to-end production entirely on vinyl, whereas most of my post was concerned with digital sampling and vinyl playback). You've challenged my statement that vinyl doesn't have an exact, absolute 'max resolution' due to its analogue nature, but you never said why - if you're going call me out on something, it would be nice to know the reason, because as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with that statement. As no part of your post actually contradicts me, it's difficult to understand why you think I'm wrong. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1129505 | 2010-08-22 04:04:00 | ...but you made no comparison between records, CDs and mp3s. Snorkbox and I, and many others no doubt, rip to mp3s. Is there as much loss as we are told and if so, are you able to tell the difference when you play those mp3s on your shitty little car stereo? Or most other stereos? Personally, I notice little difference and as long as it sounds okay - and it does - then I'm not too worried about any loss due to the compression - but I am interested in what difference there is and if it is discernible.There's definitely a difference - how much depends on the bitrate of the MP3 file, the quality of the encoder (although most are pretty good these days), the quality of the original file, and (most importantly) the quality of your ears. There will always be some loss of quality - MP3 achieves its small file size by throwing away a lot of the information - but once you get over approx 250kbits/sec most people won't be able to tell the difference between that and a CD unless they're actually listening for it, and have good hearing. If your hearing is good enough, you'll notice compression artifacts in the high range - this sounds like someone is playing the high frequencies through a drainpipe (distorted and hollow), while the lower frequencies generally still sound fine. If your audio system is sub-par, compression artifacts are less noticible, because the sound is so bad already that it masks them. You can usually still hear them if you try, but it's no longer your main problem :rolleyes:. Unless you're incredibly picky, MP3 files are just fine for the car - to be honest, they're fine for most home stereo systems too (provided you use a high enough bitrate), unless you have very good hearing. Avoid bitrates *below* 128kbits/sec or so with MP3 - it's low enough that even those with bad hearing will be able to easily hear the resulting compression artifacts, and MP3 isn't terribly efficient at low bitrates at the best of times. If you must use a low bitrate, pick a codec that was designed for it (e.g. AAC+). |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||