Page 3 of 4
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:57 am
by Big_Berny
You know, if you'd really be willing to prove your observations I'm sure somebody would investigate the cause. But if you don't prove it there's no need to invest hours of work just to find out that there's no difference.
It's the same like with the ABX test. I already did all I could by uploading some samples and instructions to test if you echo-adding really is useful. And I also asked you if you want to send me a song so that I can prepare a test. But as long as you just say that it sounds better and don't want to prove it, it's just not true.
And some things are jsut not possible! MIDI has nothing to do with MP3, WMA and so on. If you mean that then you just don't understand how it works. Same thing as you told that the forum (or your modem) switched some characters...
But as I said: If you can prove that you hear a difference, prove it and then I'm willing to believe.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:16 am
by rovingcowboy
i ain't got to prove it again. and if you had the open mind to find the posts i said what i did, and do it on your system it would change your mind. unless you can't hear those 2 freq's which i think you can not hear them.
but you know if that sound font thing is caused by something going wrong on my sound card there is no way to get any file for you to test so asking to prove that is just a waste of time, and you knew that.
as for the reason the sound fonts changed this card was because it has the file load in to the synth. which changes the settings in the synth, which the synth did load them but did not like them. so it lasted an hour then crashed the drivers for the synth, that is what changed it on this computer. but its the other computer i can't figure out what changed it there. since it uses a sound bank folder for the fonts.
so it must be one to the diodes or resistors on the card that is messing up which might just be the error, but i can't afford a new sound card now.
as for you bringing up the modem. it still messes up the fonts and words. but i don't use it anymore for anything only once and a while I'll download email on dial up. i use this wireless modem now.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:47 am
by Guest
Mon Oct 27, 2003, somethings never change!
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:58 am
by Guest
rovingcowboy wrote:
also i found that if it is not on the song files that doing defraging the songs have a 99% chance of being messed up by the defragmenting.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:40 pm
by rovingcowboy
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.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:49 pm
by judas
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!
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:01 pm
by Teknojnky
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 ?
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:14 pm
by monkey hi fi
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
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:01 am
by Big_Berny
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.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:15 am
by rovingcowboy
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.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:18 am
by Big_Berny
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!
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:31 am
by rovingcowboy
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,
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.
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.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:18 pm
by drjboulder
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...
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:21 pm
by Teknojnky
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.
Re: Sound Quality Question
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:25 pm
by nohitter151
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.