|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
View Poll Results: Are you an audiophile? | |||
Yes | 96 | 55.17% | |
No | 78 | 44.83% | |
Voters: 174. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
Gonna have to say yes. I can tell the different between a 128kbps and 192 kbps as clear as night and day. :/
It really annoys me when half of my collection is only 128 kbps because I can't find higher quality. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
I'd like to be an audiophile, but I can't afford good equipment. I can very easily detect the difference in any mp3 less than 320kbps, and I can also very easily detect a poorly mastered CD when I hear "clipping".
My father's also an audiophile. We don't get along for shit, but over the years it's been discovered we have similar tastes in music. He's also obsessed with video equipment. He has so many DVD players, CD players, standalone writers, speakers, amps, etc. Drives my mother crazy. What gets me is that even though I can tell low quality from high, I have trouble adjusting, say, an equalizer so that it sounds just right. It's almost like I can set it several different ways and music will sound just as good as before but merely different. I mostly just set the treble and bass high and leave it at that. Most amazing jew boots |
I'd say that I'm an audiophile, or at least I'm excessively picky about audio quality. ^^ At the very least, I can tell the difference between 128KBPS Xing-encoded MP3s and 256KBPS AAC or Musepack or whatever quite clearly, and I've spend a lot of time and money researching, buying, and occasionally restoring sound equipment, though I'd rather spend my time and money buying lots and lots of CDs and records. <3
On the other hand, I really think that a lot of people who claim to be audiophiles are just big fans of conspicuous spending. I can easily see a fairly wealthy person paying up for custom-molded in-ear headphones or flat speakers the size of a fairly large person, but do €500/meter power cables, Tiptoes for anything other than turntables, or even some particularly high-end sound equipment (big monoblocks or SET tube amps, anyone?) really improve anyone's listening experience at all, let alone to a degree that justifies their cost? Audiophilia is about music, not about HEY GUYS LOOK AT MY STACKED MERIDIAN MONOBLOCK BIWIRE HOSPITAL-GRADE POWER CABLES. :\ Most amazing jew boots |
I am definitely not an audiophile.
I can certainly hear the difference between a 64kbps and 192kbps, but I usually just stick to the 128, unless I absolutely LOVE the song or artist. In which case, I try hard to obtain the closest thing I can to lossless. But I don't have the time, the room, or the patience to maintain a lossless (or as near-to-lossless) music collection. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Yes you do. All you need is like a 250GB hard drive and an internet connection~
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
As others have said, such as Sass above, I can tell the difference between the standard 192kbps and the lowers ones, even 128 in some cases, but I'm by no means an audiophile. I often rip at a slightly higher bitrate, mostly because I can afford to having plentiful amounts of filespace available. Even so, I'll happily listen to 160kbps, or something, without being any the wiser.
If it sounds fine to me then it's all good. FELIPE NO |
Besides. You'd have to BACK THAT SHIT UP, someday. I wouldn't look forward to it. I like to have a nice, clean, precise hardrive. I need all the room for my fucking FILES on all of you. ^_^ I have the cable connection and a 200GB drive. I just don't want to stuff it with lossless music I will PROBABLY never listen to more than three times. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Well Christ, I'd imagine maybe you'd but time into downloading some good music once in a while, not just shitty music.
Also, you don't have to back up stuff if you don't want to; it's really up to you. "Nice, clean, precise harddrive." You know they're meant to be filled up with files, right. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
This poses an interesting question: what format do you use? I have heard that Ogg Vorbis can have the same quality as mp3s at bitrates 25-50% lower than the mp3.
I generally am more concerned about the original rip then what I do with the files afterwards. Getting a bad rip is worse than encoding lossless to 128kbps CBR for me, which is why I'm into things like offset correction and AccurateRip. I do still have many unperfect rips laying around, simply because I'm too lazy (and don't care enough about the albums) to care about ripping them perfectly. Of course back in 2000, I was ignorant to good audio as hell. When I used Music Match and ripped to 96kbps CBR Xing mp3s, I thought that sounded great, of course that's when I also had my HDD crash on me (and didn't get it replaced for nearly a year). There's nowhere I can't reach. |
I never quite got into Lossless music myself. Or that FLAC thing whatsoever.
I guess I'm a bit of an audiophile since I prefer anything better than 128. 320? Eh, will do. Most amazing jew boots |
Well mp3s are old technology and were not meant to be used forever. Nevertheless, people refuse to move past them. Especially since drive space becomes more and more of a non-issue, no reason not to just encode mp3s as 320kbps and have them be supported by pretty much anything than encode in ogg. I actually see m4a used more often these days than ogg.
But I don't think we should restrict this thread to the talk of audio regarding computers. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
I personally encode all of my own music as 256KBPS AAC using everyone's least favourite program iTunes...it's as good as lossless on both my headphones and speakers, and works on my iPod (not the audiophile choice, I know) without any transcoding. ^^ What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
I thought that real audiophiles used FLAC for lossless music?
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Let me tell you all a little secret.
Nobody actually stores lossless formats on drives, unless they are serving the releases. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
OH SHI-- Exception to the Rule! Most amazing jew boots |
How ya doing, buddy? |
It's a new technology called CDs.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I store all my stuff on my drive I've got a TB of space so I see no reason not to. I back them up to DVD and burn them to CD-RW when I want to listen to them off my PC. If I burned all my stuff to CD, it'd be like 300 CDs. As if I don't have enough random spindles of burned shit all over my room.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Do I insist on all my music being lossless? No. But with the exception of a few old CDs I've lost track of and can't find to re-rip, everything I OWN is in lossless or VBR and everything else I have is in 192CBR, LAME, or better. Personally, I only rip a disc to lossless when (A) It's very well mastered and (B) I absolutely love the tracks on it. Anything else I'm fine with VBR for my computer setup. But computers are lousy Hi-Fi sources anyway. Even if you get an EMU0404 or something it still won't compare to a good SACD player.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Because I have the space (Hooray for external hard drives!) I try to get all my music in 320kbps if possible.
FELIPE NO |
I used to not care about the sound quality too much; if it was over 128k/s Mp3 it was fine for me. Though nowadays I can tell the difference between a 128 / 160 mp3. I rip / re-encode all my music now to 180Kb/s ABR, which is fine for me. I see 320kbps mp3s and definitely lossless audio as a waste, and any music I get like that I sometimes re-encode. Definitely if it's lossless.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
I would've ripped all my CDs (audio or not) to a lossless format, if my HDD was big enough. I'm ultra-anal about data integrity and almost always throw away files that are broken or corrupted.
With LAME 3.97 being the way it is, I don't any reason to ever encode any mp3s at 320kbps CBR. It would take some high end hardware to tell the difference between -V 2 and --preset insane anymore. I still wonder why people use CBR as opposed to ABR/VBR now, CBR is a waste of quality and space and isn't even necesary for streaming anymore. They should change LAME's default encoding settings from CBR 128 to ABR 128 or -V 5, generally most Mp3s encoded using these settings sound better than CBR 128 and sometimes use a lower bitrate (especially true for Genesis VGM rips). Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Four years ago I couldn't tell the difference. Ever since, I can clearly hear the difference in quality between 160k and 320k. I'll mostly be on a lookout for the guitars, voice plus some other effects. When heard on certain headphones, the bass and treble can make a huge difference.
So yeah, I prefer 320k. As for VBRs, I prefer 192 VBR and above. Lossless are more of a waste of space for me, though I don't mind having for keepsake. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Thread Tools | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audiophile heaven | KeyLogic | General Game Music Discussion | 1 | Aug 13, 2007 05:31 AM |