Sound Quality Question

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :-? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Sound Quality Question

by rovingcowboy » Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:50 am

theta_wave wrote: *sigh* I fear that this discussion will soon be trapped in an infinite loop, if it hasn't already. :lol:

no its not teknojnky won't budge and i wont budge,
i'm just waiting on an answer to the riddle but they don't seem to know it.

8)

by theta_wave » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:42 pm

Teknojnky wrote:It does absolutely nothing except increase the size and can even potentially LOSE quality (lossy to lossy). And before RC says it, no amount of echo, volume, bass or treble will restore the quality to the original source.
*sigh* I fear that this discussion will soon be trapped in an infinite loop, if it hasn't already. :lol:

by theta_wave » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:41 pm

I thought I provided the answer in the third post, silly me... :roll:

by drjboulder » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:46 pm

Sorry, I was not seriously asking. Just making light of the fact that a simple question with an obvious answer, generated three pages of replies! :lol:

Re: Sound Quality Question

by nohitter151 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:25 pm

nohitter151 wrote:
Pena47 wrote:Now this may seem a bit silly, but I was very confused.

Within MediaMonkey you can convert a song, and even set the new quality (kb/s). For example, I can take a song that is regularly 128 kb/s and change it to 320 kb/s, what I wanted to know is what exactly is this doing? The quality does not improve, but the file size does increase. Thanks
Its doing just what you said, making the file a larger size but with no increase in sound quality. You can never make a song sound better by converting it to a different format.

by Teknojnky » Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:21 pm

drjboulder wrote:
Pena47 wrote:Now this may seem a bit silly, but I was very confused.

Within MediaMonkey you can convert a song, and even set the new quality (kb/s). For example, I can take a song that is regularly 128 kb/s and change it to 320 kb/s, what I wanted to know is what exactly is this doing? The quality does not improve, but the file size does increase. Thanks
Wonder if Pena47 ever got his answer...
He answered his own question.

It does absolutely nothing except increase the size and can even potentially LOSE quality (lossy to lossy). And before RC says it, no amount of echo, volume, bass or treble will restore the quality to the original source.

by drjboulder » Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:18 pm

monkey hi fi wrote: riddle me this?
what is a book that is not read, and what is a song that is not heard.?
I give, what is the answer?
Pena47 wrote:Now this may seem a bit silly, but I was very confused.

Within MediaMonkey you can convert a song, and even set the new quality (kb/s). For example, I can take a song that is regularly 128 kb/s and change it to 320 kb/s, what I wanted to know is what exactly is this doing? The quality does not improve, but the file size does increase. Thanks
Wonder if Pena47 ever got his answer...

by rovingcowboy » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:31 am

Big_Berny wrote:That's jsut not true. A DSP can work exactly as good as when you decode and edit the WAV. There's no difference than if the program can do that directly!
rovingcowboy wrote:
tried them they don't work as well as the wide and dynmic dsp i use on win98,
8)
read it again. it says they don't work AS WELL AS meaning that plugin works better for me not that it works better then the others you mentioned. 8)


and what your saying to use puts the process on the computer cpu as it is playing the song. what i do is put it in the song file before it is played and has less of an impact on the cpu when playing.

by Big_Berny » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:18 am

That's jsut not true. A DSP can work exactly as good as when you decode and edit the WAV. There's no difference than if the program can do that directly!

by rovingcowboy » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:15 am

Big_Berny wrote:As I said, rc: If I were you I'd try out DFX. It's a sound enhancment for audio (they claim that it improves specoially MP3s) which works similar to your modification but is much more complex.

http://www.fxsound.com/dfx/index.php?ve ... =0&refer=0

A lot people like that while audiophiles don't.
tried them they don't work as well as the wide and dynmic dsp i use on win98,

you just don't get it though. those don't help with every part of the songs. you need to get in to the wave and edit it.
8)

by Big_Berny » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:01 am

As I said, rc: If I were you I'd try out DFX. It's a sound enhancment for audio (they claim that it improves specoially MP3s) which works similar to your modification but is much more complex.

http://www.fxsound.com/dfx/index.php?ve ... =0&refer=0

A lot people like that while audiophiles don't.

by monkey hi fi » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:14 pm

Teknojnky wrote:Tell me cowboy, I am curious..

Would you tell someone to re-write their favorite book to better match how they want the story to go ?
riddle me this?
what is a book that is not read, and what is a song that is not heard.?


roving cowboy / keith hall / monkey hi fi


8)

by Teknojnky » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:01 pm

Tell me cowboy, I am curious..

Would you tell someone to re-write their favorite book to better match how they want the story to go ?

by judas » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:49 pm

Lol! :-)

Gotta say I love binary stuff, you know: bits and bytes...DIGITAL ERA...and BTW...I think the explanation someone did referring to the copying machine was a good analogy!

by rovingcowboy » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:40 pm

yes some things never change but in the case of that statement you qouted you got the first message i did of that,
look in later messages you will find one that some one had fully explained that reason and i had agreed with him, so that is not the same thought of mine anymore i just forget sometimes and post that in new replys. but it is do to some sort of codeing error not defrag.
8)

Top