#1
how many of you are aware I'm wondering of just how horrible mp3s sound?

How many have actually looked at the bit rate o an mp3 and seen something at 32 or 96, and can you hear the difference?

It's no wonder kids don't like led Zeppelin, it sounds sooooo bad on mp3s!
#3
If your listening to anything in 32 it's gona sound horrible, 192 and up sounds decent to me+ I suppose not many people want to spend all their money on hard drives for storing everything in FLAC
I've Made You A Drawing of a Giraffe Fucking an Elephant. Notice How His Moustache Looks Just Like Mine.

Your Mother's Got a Penis
#6
Thats because 32 and 96 are both horrible bitrates. Who the hell encodes MP3's that low?

Mine are mostly 192kbps and up, and some are at 128.
#7
32 or 96kbps is a ****e quality. 192kbps to 320kbps are the good/decent sounding mp3s. I doubt many people listen to music below 128kbps anyway.
NOPE.
#10
Quote by insomniac_style
bit rate has nothing to do why kids dont like zeppelin. if they like it, then they'll like it, if they dont, they don't, regardless of sound quality



no way dude. Play Dazed & confused at 192 then play it on an apple lossless or aiff or even vynil, esp vynil, and the difference is so obvious.

Even 192 might be "decent", but at that rate a lot of higher frequencies are cut out that you may not hear, but they have a huge effect on the overall sound quality.

I prefer AIFF and apple lossless, and analog vynil esp (digital vynil is a joke)

what is OGG?
#11
If you can't hear the frequencies, then it doesn't make a difference if they are there or not. You aren't going to hear them either way.
#12
yes the sound quality is crappy, but in all honesty played on little ipod ear buds who gives a shit?
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
Last edited by tommyt at Aug 11, 2008,
#13
I don't mind MP3s but some of them sound absolutely **** when combined with the horrible audio quality of the Ipod.
Here's what the critics are saying about Hanzi_G:

Quote by SteveHouse
Hanzi_G = god damned prophet.

SIG ME GODDAMMIT
#14
Quote by Masonpwiley
If you can't hear the frequencies, then it doesn't make a difference if they are there or not. You aren't going to hear them either way.


That might sound like it makes sense, but it's not true. Sound effects sound and the higher and lower frequencies of a song have an effect on the rest of the sounds and even though you might not hear it in your ear, in your head the difference is there and the sound is affected.

I know this as a recording professional law of nature. I'm not saying you're an idiot for thinking that; it's a very common misconception.

But with that said, most kids are listening to music on ipod buds and as mp3s, so they're not going to hear a band the way it was meant to be heard.
#15
how do i go about using one of these FLAC files? i've seen them but never messed with them.
The best thing about life is knowing you put it together
#16
Quote by vanitybinge
That might sound like it makes sense, but it's not true. Sound effects sound and the higher and lower frequencies of a song have an effect on the rest of the sounds and even though you might not hear it in your ear, in your head the difference is there and the sound is affected.

I know this as a recording professional law of nature. I'm not saying you're an idiot for thinking that; it's a very common misconception.

But with that said, most kids are listening to music on ipod buds and as mp3s, so they're not going to hear a band the way it was meant to be heard.


Yes however they could always just go and buy the cd .....

ofc mp3's have a lesser sound quality but to most people the difference is tiny, while you're argument is valid, it's pointless in the end because most people just don't care .... oh and i've heard zepplin on plenty of other formatts. I just think theyre
****.

Quote by MetalMegaMan
how do i go about using one of these FLAC files? i've seen them but never messed with them.


you can download a codec to use them on itunes and windows media player etc, there are links on the wikipedia .flac page.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#19
Quote by weemansyndrome
This thread is stupid. :/


Who actually encodes at 32? Seriously?


I thought of this when I downloaded a rare track from Mick Mars' old band Whitehorse in the 70s. The file came in as a 32 bit mp3. I thought to myself what am I going to get out of this that's makes such a rare track enjoyable? I'm not going hear a damn thing and I was right.

I guess I wanted to know how many people ARE aware of this and how many don't know about it or just don't care.

Also, a lot of newer bands seem to have little or no dynamics to them. The loudness of the tracks has all the whispers and quiet parts of a song just as loud as everything else, and I wondered if this has anything to do with the fact that mp3s cut out so many dynamics, have people really become used to everything being squished together?

And beyond that, how many people will listen to a song with great dynamics, say Earth Wind & Fire or Frank Zappa, and then say they don't like it because they have to actually listen for different things? Is there anyone out there who says "I'd rather hear everything at once at the same volume so my ears don't have to do any work"

This is important to me as a musician. If I record a song with great dynamics, how many people are going to turn it into an mp3 to share with their friends and then complain about not liking it because they don't hear it the right way? I have head great songs sound ****ty when converted to an mp3. This is something that effects everyone on this site wether you're a recording guitarist or just a listener.
#20
Quote by vanitybinge

Also, a lot of newer bands seem to have little or no dynamics to them. The loudness of the tracks has all the whispers and quiet parts of a song just as loud as everything else, and I wondered if this has anything to do with the fact that mp3s cut out so many dynamics, have people really become used to everything being squished together?


It's people not using dynamics. A song using dynamics well becomes a lot more expressive without a shadow of a doubt. I feel it's a shame that so many artists don't use this often overlooked discipline in song writing.

On the subject of MP3s losing the dynamics, I'd say not. I've got plenty of MP3s that have dynamics in them, and they all sound fine to me!



Oh yeah, and 32 - 90kbs is rubbish - just felt that needed reiterating!
#22
I think anyting under 128 was designed for dial up, back in the days (in the UK anyway), when you could only stay connected for an hour at a time at 56kb/s
I've Made You A Drawing of a Giraffe Fucking an Elephant. Notice How His Moustache Looks Just Like Mine.

Your Mother's Got a Penis
#23
I agree. There is plenty of great music today, but it sounds like **** because of the loss of dynamics and lack of sound/tone experentation. Also, digital sounds horrible compared to analog-thats why old recordings sound so much warmer, fuller and better (ignoring production). Also, MP3s are the worst thing to happen to music since the BC Rich Bich. MP3s are simply a joke.
#24
No recordings can sound better than being face to face with the real thing, so your point is worthless. Also, everything under 128 is unlistenable. Listen to mp3s at 256-320 kbps like most of mine are and then complain.
Quote by BLOBERT
BRO