The sound quality debate.

of course there is a difference between perception and reality, never doubted that.

but for your brain to process something, it has to have access to the information which should be processed.

and for most of us, its simply true that our ears cant process any information above 18k hz and therefore doesnt send any impulses regarding information in that area forth to the brain. there MAY be some individuals who are lucky enough to have maintained their childhood hearing and therefor be able to differntiate between 320kbps mp3s and waves, but for the most part, even professional engineers cant say which one is which with a blind hearing..
 
groelle said:
and with "trained ear", you mean little boys and girls' ears. cause when youre young, possibilities exist that you can hear farther than just 18k hz
Click to expand...

Yeah, hearing fatigues as you age. To be honest most music is squashed fuck these days and you're probably not going to notice any difference because there is no room to breathe. However I'm pretty sure that if you listened to a well recorded acoustic guitar on wav and MP3 then a slight difference may be detectable.
By trained ear I mean someone who has developed their ear over an extended period of time, critically listening to music and rectifying any problems within a decent studio environment.

If there is no difference in sound quality then why do samplepacks offer samples mainly in 24bit wav instead of just mp3's?
 
Not just the room the speakers are in dude; the placement/elevation of the speakers and the surface they're placed on makes a difference in the sound too, at least that's what I've noticed. It's very evident for those deep bass-like sounds, where it pays to have the speakers on a low elevated surface that can carry the frequencies through around the rest of the space.

I really hate listening to music on any mobile device, that's a definite. Especially with music as technical as dnb; you lose so much of the harmonics and resonances b/c those things aren't built for a full range of sound output. I think most televisions suck when it comes to listening to music too, about the same problem I have with phones but less so. I'm talking the internal stereo speakers mind you.

Would love to get some proper headphones, but the best go for a couple hundred at the least. Got an eye out for some in the near future tho.
 
Last edited:
groelle said:
of course there is a difference between perception and reality, never doubted that.

but for your brain to process something, it has to have access to the information which should be processed.

and for most of us, its simply true that our ears cant process any information above 18k hz and therefore doesnt send any impulses regarding information in that area forth to the brain. there MAY be some individuals who are lucky enough to have maintained their childhood hearing and therefor be able to differntiate between 320kbps mp3s and waves, but for the most part, even professional engineers cant say which one is which with a blind hearing..
Click to expand...

It's not just about frequency response though is it. It's about providing a detailed digital equivalent of a sound.
 
i get what youre trying to say, but for me the biophysics argument prevails.

its like looking at a zoomed in painting. you wont know that theres more unless you zoom out. but your ears cant just zoom out and go beyond 18khz, therefor, there just isnt more.

if you want, you could google people testing it in a blindfolded test. all i got were german geek forums with tests where no one was able to identify all files right..
 
Not really a debate is it, if you are a professional, or even just a keen as hell bedroom guy, you should go for the highest quality, if you want to output the highest quality.

Some argument can be made for file size, but if you have digital, get a hard drive and you can wav it up all you want.

If there a price issue that makes this relevant? you get the best quality sounding files you can period!
 
sam the dnb man said:
Yeah, hearing fatigues as you age. To be honest most music is squashed fuck these days and you're probably not going to notice any difference because there is no room to breathe. However I'm pretty sure that if you listened to a well recorded acoustic guitar on wav and MP3 then a slight difference may be detectable.
By trained ear I mean someone who has developed their ear over an extended period of time, critically listening to music and rectifying any problems within a decent studio environment.

If there is no difference in sound quality then why do samplepacks offer samples mainly in 24bit wav instead of just mp3's?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said this. It doesn't even matter because, especially with tech step, we're listening to music that's so fucking squashed that it doesn't matter. The dynamics are totally ruined so the producer has more head room to have the loudest snare possible.
 
groelle said:
i get what youre trying to say, but for me the biophysics argument prevails.

its like looking at a zoomed in painting. you wont know that theres more unless you zoom out. but your ears cant just zoom out and go beyond 18khz, therefor, there just isnt more.

if you want, you could google people testing it in a blindfolded test. all i got were german geek forums with tests where no one was able to identify all files right..
Click to expand...

Probably undiscernible to most people, but if no cost issue, which I am unsure about, why not just get the highest quality?
 
tewky1 said:
Not really a debate is it, if you are a professional, or even just a keen as hell bedroom guy, you should go for the highest quality, if you want to output the highest quality.

Some argument can be made for file size, but if you have digital, get a hard drive and you can wav it up all you want.

If there a price issue that makes this relevant? you get the best quality sounding files you can period!
Click to expand...

When it's 10X the amount of storage and twice as much money, it is an issue. It's like paying twice the amount for a car that has a bigger engine, but doesn't go any faster.
 
Afek_One said:
When it's 10X the amount of storage and twice as much money, it is an issue. It's like paying twice the amount for a car that has a bigger engine, but doesn't go any faster.
Click to expand...

Storage is cheap in this day and age? I have a 256 SSD in my pc, with 2 x 1tb drives in raid 0, then a 2tb backup drive, i wont ever run out of space, phones might be an issue, but a 64gb htc one x+ sorts me out there :)

tldr, wavs are better, deal with it.
 
Er the quality of the speaker is going to make a massive difference in sound, not just about size, also listening to music on earbud things for a long time is going to damage your hearing!

Quality rules, invest in good quality speakers and they should last years :) worth paying more money for the long run than having speakers with poor sound quality. Bigger does not necessarily mean louder/better quality... I got some Alesis ones around 4 years ago and still don't feel the need to upgrade, you can adjust the settings according to where they are placed in the room too
 
Last edited:
i also do a car reference of my mixdowns - and for the first time i bounced to wav and yes you can very much hear a difference... it was a lot cleaner and crisp on my not so very good car speakers than an mp3
 
Some guy did a presentation to a load of sound engineers and producers a few years back testing peoples opinions on differences in sound.

He had a speaker and which had a switch on which did absolutely fuck all. he played a song through the speaker with the switch up then again with the switch down. He told them it changed something to do with the signal and then everyone was saying all the differences in the sound they heard.

He then told them there was absolutely no difference and it was all in their head.

My point is you hear what you want to hear. Obviously to a certain extent there is a big difference between somethings i.e. 128kbs mp3 and a WAV but, a lot of the time people are chatting shit about the big difference in quality of things.
 
My god this thread sucks almost as much ass as the fucking "Great Vinyl Debate DERP" thread


Seriously makes my balls itch :hype:
 
Sc0tty said:
Some guy did a presentation to a load of sound engineers and producers a few years back testing peoples opinions on differences in sound.

He had a speaker and which had a switch on which did absolutely fuck all. he played a song through the speaker with the switch up then again with the switch down. He told them it changed something to do with the signal and then everyone was saying all the differences in the sound they heard.

He then told them there was absolutely no difference and it was all in their head.

My point is you hear what you want to hear. Obviously to a certain extent there is a big difference between somethings i.e. 128kbs mp3 and a WAV but, a lot of the time people are chatting shit about the big difference in quality of things.
Click to expand...

Maybe the study shows more about the power of suggestion/authority position effect/psychology...he messed with that to get that desired result. IF he had told them the switch will either make no difference, or a difference would he get a different result?
 
djemz said:
Maybe the study shows more about the power of suggestion/authority position effect/psychology...he messed with that to get that desired result. IF he had told them the switch will either make no difference, or a difference would he get a different result?
Click to expand...

They could of just been honest an said I can't hear any difference rather than saying one is clearer than the other and warmer.... etc.. etc... I'm pretty sure he even played the sound four times, twice with the switch up and twice with it down.
 
Back
Top Bottom