B
This is a great thread. I noticed there's one subject that hasn't really been mentioned that's kind of a big thing for me personally, compression.
Not the compression relating to file size but the compression of the audio content within the file.
The following is just my personal opinion as someone who spent a few years working with audio, your mileage may vary.
My preference for my digital archives is to be in uncompressed full dynamic range FLAC format (A good 320k mp3 also makes the grade). I want my source to always be as clean and fully dynamic as possible.
The lower the file's quality the worse the high end sounds to me, things like cymbal work, sibilance, and so on take on a crunchy almost distorted quality.
If I need to compress or convert to mp3 for different listening environments where clarity isn't critical or file size is an issue I like to be able to control that myself.
I've tossed many a download in the recycle bin after giving them a listen and looking at the wave form. To me there's no point in having a FLAC of even a 320k mp3 file if it's been
crushed into oblivion, that's like putting lipstick and perfume on a pig. A smaller 160-256k will suffice until I find a better source.
To me an over compressed /maximized what ever you want to call it file has a very over saturated flat papery sound and lacks depth, much like FM radio transmissions.
I don't want to waste time going into the specifics of compression here but this page has a good explanation on the basics if you're unfamiliar >
Here's a screen grab of a Beatles song, one is what I'd call over compressed the other is not compressed at all.
As you can see there's a big difference which very noticeably translates into what you hear regardless if it's a lossless high bitrate or a lossy lower bitrate file.
Anyway, this is just my 2 cents worth, I'm not meaning to offend, criticize, or complain, in the end it's all about personal preference.
I just thought it might be a good subject for a music related thread.
Party on Garth
Not the compression relating to file size but the compression of the audio content within the file.
The following is just my personal opinion as someone who spent a few years working with audio, your mileage may vary.
My preference for my digital archives is to be in uncompressed full dynamic range FLAC format (A good 320k mp3 also makes the grade). I want my source to always be as clean and fully dynamic as possible.
The lower the file's quality the worse the high end sounds to me, things like cymbal work, sibilance, and so on take on a crunchy almost distorted quality.
If I need to compress or convert to mp3 for different listening environments where clarity isn't critical or file size is an issue I like to be able to control that myself.
I've tossed many a download in the recycle bin after giving them a listen and looking at the wave form. To me there's no point in having a FLAC of even a 320k mp3 file if it's been
crushed into oblivion, that's like putting lipstick and perfume on a pig. A smaller 160-256k will suffice until I find a better source.
To me an over compressed /maximized what ever you want to call it file has a very over saturated flat papery sound and lacks depth, much like FM radio transmissions.
I don't want to waste time going into the specifics of compression here but this page has a good explanation on the basics if you're unfamiliar >
Code:
https://blog.landr.com/how-to-use-a-compressor/As you can see there's a big difference which very noticeably translates into what you hear regardless if it's a lossless high bitrate or a lossy lower bitrate file.
Anyway, this is just my 2 cents worth, I'm not meaning to offend, criticize, or complain, in the end it's all about personal preference.
I just thought it might be a good subject for a music related thread.
Party on Garth
