Who mixes lossless music?

Do ya?

  • Total voters
    26
There was a study on how MP3's are more fatiguing to listen to over a long period of time in comparison to wav's.

With MP3's you lose around 90% of the data. They are harsh on the ear but to an unconscious level. As a lot of the data is lost, your brain is compensating. I remember reading about it somewhere. I'll try and find the article.
 
Mania said:
Just so you know muzza, and everybody else, your ears cant really hear above 18k

test urself http://gamquistu.com/games/hearing

If youre willing to spend extra dosh for shit you can hear that takes up x5 the space, go for it. Also, keep in mind there are many blind comparison tests on the net if you still think theres a noticable difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly...


You will now obviously get people saying they can hear all these ridiculous frequencies but, are they telling the truth? Who knows?
 
Reactor Grits said:
Here's an interesting read about it:

http://www.djbroadcast.net/features/featureitem_id=47/Death_to_the_MP3.html
Click to expand...
Opened the article, first paragraph

"Consider this, a ‘high-quality’ 320kbps MP3 file represents 22% of the quality of a WAV file. As a crude comparison, that’s like watching a 240p video on YouTube through a full-HD TV compared to watching it at 1080p. What’s the point of buying expensive audio equipment, speakers, headphones, club soundsystems or otherwise, if the music you are listening to it on is a low-grade facsimile of what its supposed to sound like?"

Just so you know, this is complete bullshit
 
And that stopped you from reading the rest? Since I found that a pretty good comparison; a 240 dpi film looks alright on a small screen but shit on a big one, just as a 320 mp3 sounds allright on audio equipment which is not too high end. Care to elaborate?
 
Last edited:
Reactor Grits said:
And that stopped you from reading the rest? Since I found that a pretty good comparison; a 240 dpi film looks alright on a small screen but shit on a big one, just as a 320 mp3 sounds allright on audio equipment which is not too high end. Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
I could pick out many things, but id hate to be tedious n kill the thread

EDIT: and just incase you didnt see

(the author)
6a5c93fb76.png


And thats a super important distinction to make
 
Last edited:
People far cleverer than you and I have come up with the mp3 compression algorithms to remove frequencies in songs that the human ear cannot physically hear. Yes there is less information there but its not been randomly cut out to make the files 1/4 of the size.

Can you hear the difference? Possibly. Mp3 cuts off the frequencies of tracks above 20khz. Lossless tracks will include the last 2khz up to 22khz. can you hear this? Probably not. Does it make a difference? probably not but i'm not going to argue with people who claim that it does.

The ONLY reason you need FLAC's is when you are massively slowing down tracks tempo wise, ie for remixes or bootlegs or genre switching. And that's easily fixed by mixing at 178bpm+ so none of your tracks need slowing down, which is what pretty much every dj does anyway.
 
[MENTION=88305]azzybish[/MENTION] say it aint so! besides, surely in all of history has there never been anyone so clever as these two

im doing sort of a puck thing in this thread, dont know how you think its going or
 
It seems like the people that are pissed off here are the ones that have probably bought quite a large mp3 collection. I was pissed off when I eventually realised that lossless music is the way forward because I had bought loads of mp3s simply because they were cheaper. But at the same time I was actually relieved that I have the best sound possible.

Another thing... When you are making a mix and you mix the whole thing using mp3s, when you go to upload your mix to soundcloud or wherever, your mix will be compressed further by soundcloud. Basically, compressing compressed music even more...

also...

http://tidalhifi.com/gb/campaign/audio?gclid=CKKl85aR4MMCFfQZtAodSiMANA
 
Back
Top Bottom