[citation][nom]ivaroeines[/nom]There is a problem with most blind tests is that most of them ( if not all ) are conducted on a system that are set up by the ones that make the test, the participants will then be unfamiliar with the sound of the test system. The human brain have a marvellous ability to "correct"/ mask faults in any given input, either it being visual or audible. Think about this, the last time you bought a tv, pc-monitor or sound system, what was your first impression, was the picture/ sound better or worse than your old one, my guess is that the first impression was that the picture/ sound was worse or that it wasnt any better. For it to be a blind test that shows a real picture the test need to be made on systems the testers are familiar with ( basically their own system ). I do believe that blind tests are important, but they need to be conducted in the right way, the audiovisual field is full of placebo effects, if you truly believe a component or format is better than another then the impression will be that is better even if it produces the same or poorer results. There are even some people that think that blue ray are better than VHS, that just shows how easily fooled people can be.[/citation]
lol calling vhs better than bluray...
lets look at it this way, it all depends on how its handled, old vhs and i mean really old, had the best quality in everything, and non of the imposed limits just for the sake of old school coppy right protection. there are many cases where the old vhs surpass dvd in quality, im unaware of any bluray that are effected this way, its mostly that the quality is to high and you see things that you shouldn't or cant on a dvd/ld/vhs version
i went from a crt monitor to a 22 inch 1920x1200 monitor. so yea... i defiantly know what the flaws and advantages are... but if i went from lcd to new lcd... it wouldn't so much be i know its better as much as i thing its better.
people who say they cant tell the difference between a hq mp3 and a flac are just lieing... some cases i can see it being true, like if the original recording was crap... nothing is going to fix that. but it comes out more in classical music, where you can hear the difference. also, listening to music through a 10-20$ earbuds or a sub 100$ skullcandy so crap like that headphones, no crap you cant hear the difference. in mp3, i can hear the flaws in the format, where a sound should be and so forth more than i can with an flac...
i believe that we need a set of standards...
1) a lossless audio format.
2) to use said lossless audio format in an mp3 player, you must have quality parts.
3) when selling said player, you either give them good headphones or none at all, and make sure they know if the quality isnt what they thought it would be, its their own fault.
this way the only way to get that format support is to have quality parts, not like now where most things that support flac dont have the ability to render it properly at all.
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]That's one thing I don't understand about this "tech" website. It seems to be full of people who ravenously stick to old technologies and old ways of doing things. It reminds me of the big box PC arguments where people bash smaller/lighter technologies.In any event, unlike the other "tech" people on here, I actually do like new tech and new ways of doing things. The current MP3 quality is very poor and we would certainly be better off and be capable of enjoying our music much more if we had higher quality formats.As such I hope that Neil is right and that new formats are presented to the public within a reasonable time frame. I see a lot of people investing in higher quality speakers, but the reality is that those speakers don't do you much good if you are listening to an MP3, or even a CD.[/citation]
probably because there is already a format that is good enough, and thats flac. and with new formats we have to deal with with new drm and all that crap till there is enough backlash that they are forced to drop the drm. and who wants a smaller computer... rather have a big as hell one just for airflow purposes.
[citation][nom]ProDigit10[/nom]it would be a lot better to just start recording music at 24 bit 48kHz.As for MP3, it is an outdated technology, much like a Pentium single core processor.Developed in the early 1990's, it's been superseded by OGG, which at this moment still rains as king.After OGG is AAC, which is extremely good for ultra low bitrate recordings (like speech and teachings for mobile media or web media).MP3 shines in no area.The only issue with 24 bit music, is that it is yet not compatible with OGG or AAC encoders.24 bit music has a dynamic range higher than the ear can hear (more than 144dB, which is also more than vinyls), and at 48kHz recordings (in reality are 24kHz recordings as they are 2x24kHz audio signals), with interpolation, is going beyond the range of the ear. The ear can only hear somewhere between 20Hz and 20kHz, most of them only 30Hz to 16kHz.So in essence, there is no reason why to go as far as developing a new medium. Just develop new hardware that is capable of encoding/decoding 24bit 48kHz audio into an OGG container, and you'll end up with an indistinguishable audio from the original, minus the cracks and pops and wear that vinyls have!Why waste infinite amounts of raw data that one can't hear anyways?It's like saying "Let's create a tv that records X and Gamma rays too!", that way our recordings of 1 minute video can increase in size drastically, but people won't notice a thing anyways, because their eyes are still limited to the visible frequencies![/citation]
people may not able to hear the audio, but you can precieve it.
[citation][nom]bigcatface[/nom]@nebum: who is neil young?! only one of rock and roll's greatest performers, you ******* penis.[/citation]
lol, i had to google him too. ill say he is good, but i dont like that style of music, at least what i hear on youtube of things he did.
[citation][nom]jaybus[/nom]How it sounds on current, average, high end, etc. etc. playback systems is not the issue. Most people cannot tell the difference? Nonsense. I think most people can tell the difference between live music versus music played back on a sound system, no? The point is, someday the playback equipment will very likely be good enough to sound just like live music. It will be a pity if today's recordings suck on those future playback systems simply due to inadequate or "good enough" recording techniques. The real problem with MP3 and CD is that it sets the "good enough" level for the master digital recordings. That is a pity, and I think what Mr Young is protesting. The digital master recordings should be made such that they are better, or at least as good, as the human ear.....not just good enough for CD or DVD or whatever. That way the music will be preserved for future generations who will have much better sound systems than we have. To them, CDs will sound old and distorted. And BTW, Neil Young has been protesting digital recording techniques for many years. I used to agree with him that recording should continue to use analog tape. But not now, because the technology exists to record digitally with much better SNR than analog tape and with greater dynamic range. Not to mention the fact that even the best of tape will degrade over time, and the digital recording will never degrade. The corporate-ized recording studios just don't do this, because it is cheaper to record with "good enough" quality.[/citation]
lets hope that you mean live as in quality of sound, not as in live recording... if its just the instruments... live is fairly good... if you add in a voice... i cant stand the live versions of most songs. it comes down to a you have to be there to like it kind of thing.
Facebook
Twitter