Karaoke Forums

Bruce.
You seem to have a flair for.

What's the word I'm looking for...

I didn't want to fuel an argument, either. I asked for a technical answer because I wanted to learn something about sound engineering. While there are some people in this world who are full of (expletive deleted) and just like to argue, everyone knows something that I don't know. The discussion is more productive when the ego is left out.

-denise

No, I'm talking about a club with a fair amount of background noise, through a decent PA. Been there, done it. As I said, most people won't pay that close attention, and won't notice until it's pointed out. Once it IS pointed out, they go "Oh yeah . . . I hear that!" Then they resume not giving a hairy rat's derriere.

_________________
Dave's not here.

If you are talking about a 256K mp3 encoded through a decent encoder, I will simply choose to believe you are mistaken in some detail or memory.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I guess I ripped mp3 because I didn't know any better at the time - it's what everyone I knew who had been running on computer had done. THere are plenty of people here who run circles around me technically in every way.

Still, as far as quality goes -- try this one and see how you do. I got it wrong, but I'm 52 so my hearing isn't quite what it used to be and 16 Khz for a man my age? No way in the modern world....


http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/sound-test-difference-between-wav-vs-mp3/

Not everyone's ears are the same and as we age they may get better in picking out different things but most of the time they get worse unless you live in a bubble and never hear anything loud enough to damage them. Certainly if you have ever been in a live band, a DJ or KJ hearing loud music night after night they are going to get worse.

As for live bands I have heard known artists at a concert that sound worse then the CD reasons why, noise factor in the crowd and when recorded in a studio if there is an imperfection it can be filtered out by the sound engineer or redone simple as that.

And what does all this have to do with state of Karaoke anyway?


Just my 2 cents worth!

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Quite a lot mate.

Not at all. I know many people that perceive the difference. That's how I know how people with different ranges hear MP3s- they tell me.

I would guess that your 99.9% figure comes from the fact that no one has mentioned it to you yet.

BTW, if one runs a very a high volume ( LOUD ) show, people have more of a tendency to notice the volume over the quality as well.....

I don't know if that's the case with you, and I'm not directing it at you- just making an observation.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) Yup. I've been in electronics research all of my adult life, so it's not about fear of new things. I started with tapes, went to laser discs, then CD+G. When something of BETTER QUALITY comes along, I'll go to that.

2) Well, accoustically, here's how it works:

A) Vinyl: Has the MOST audio range by far, with all the nuances that can be recorded, and carries the most audio information.

B) CDs/CD+Gs: Much more clarity than vinyl, with a bit less range.

C) High Quality Analogue Tape: More audio range than than a CD, but less clarity. Less audio range than vinyl, but more clarity.

D) .WAV and other "lossless" files: Still pretty good, though somewhat less so than the above- a LOT depends on the consumer ( No consistant QC), but if handled properly, a decent music source.

E) MP3: A single layer low info digital file that used to be known as a "sampler" file. Meant to give an IDEA of what something is supposed to be, in order for someone to decide whether to get a proper recording or not.





3) Nope. I just think they should lower the price to reflect the product, and knock off the hoop jumping that goes with it.


4) Yup. If one can't hear the difference, but wants to know if there is one, that's the way to do it.


5) Agreed.


All that being said, I have no wish to argue about what sounds good or not. I have already stated that most can't hear the difference. Also for Lon: Rip rate is important, but keep in mind that many PC users are not experts, and there are plenty of mistakes to be made in plenty of areas.

My original point was that Sound Choice is selling a lesser product, whether you hear it or not, and cheaper to produce.

Why would any sane business person pay more for less?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Correct- but only in the center of the of the midrange. I have superb hearing in the low ranges, and very good hearing in the high.

I knew you ( the #2 I mentioned in a reply to Mick) would chime in shortly....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well, you are the guy that claimed to be doing around 20 shows per month when you weren't doing any, if my memory serves me correctly.

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

Joe. I have been in electronics design part of my adult life.
I don't have superior hearing that you and your customers have.
Mine is probably worse than most of the population.
I also started with tapes.
I moved to computer.

Having read many of your posts.
I find taking you serious a little difficult.

Don't feel bad. Most here have the same experience.

I don't care about the technical aspects, if you can seriously hear a major difference between an mp3 ripped at 320 and the original source (without the aid of any kind of scopes or fequency sensers) just using your own ears, then good on ya!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Ha Ha Ha

You asked for WWIII
Don't worry.
It's like MIB

Lon.
I think you are really mean.
Superears has come to save us.

Records and tapes can (but not always) start out "better" quality than CDs but after any reasonable level of use they degrade in quality.

A worn out record sounds like a worn out record, a tape that has been used many times stretches and is no longer as good as new. On the other hand CDs generally maintain the level of quality until they completely fail. This is the reason CDs or other digitial music dominates the market, because the product is better than the formats that were replaced.

It does not take an expert to hear the difference between a worn out record and a new record of the same song. Same with a tape. But exactly where that line is crossed is a whole new topic for debate.

As a commercial product for the Professional karaoke market MP3s CAN (but are not automatically) be as good as any CD versions of the same song.

The fact that the very rare audiophile might be able to tell the difference is far outweighed by the fact that MP3s are far more convenient.

I always found the hiss on a tape and the hissing, popping, skipping and God knows what else on a vinyl record so distracting as to far outweigh any theoretical advantages that they may have had over CD and so did most the other people of my generation.

We listened to vinyl ALL THE TIME for decades before starting to convert to CDs which were by the way more expensive and required the purchase of new equipment to enjoy. Now why did we do that if vinyl is better??? We made our mistakes and smoked our fair share of doobies, but we weren't that crazy.

This love affair that some younger people have with vinyl just perplexes the hell out of me.

Funny thing is that all my friends who were 'audiophiles', had thousands invested in their stereo systems at home maybe 15-20 years ago now have these compact home theaters with an I-Pod dock and don't bat an eye at converting all their libraries to the I-Pods for playback. Radio stations use mp3 these days. Kids use mp3 for everything & are just happy to listen to the music. Audiophiles seem to be a dying breed - at least from the people I know that used to be one.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I did a lot of reading on this a couple years ago before I started ripping CD's.


So I started looking for a double blind study. And found one that did a head to head comparison between CD's and MP3's ripped at 192kbps VBR using LAME. And the number of people who could tell the difference, in a noise isolated room, using 'high end' studio headphones was well under 1%.


Think you have a 'golden ear'? Try downloading the ABX comparator and run a study yourself. ABX comparators work by having you listen to 2 samples at different bit rates/samples rates and then it randomly plays one of the samples and you have to tell which one is was.

In a bar, with a high noise floor, with people who's hearing is affected by drinking alcohol - the number of people who could tell drops even lower.

Sure, there are a very small number of people who work in the audio industry who 'might' be able to tell - but in all honesty, I've played CDG's back to back with 192KBS MP3+G back to back with SCDG's (which IIRC are 128kbps CBR). And no one could tell the difference.


The human ear is a LOUSY measuring instrument.

Years ago, I was working at a bar in Anchorage, and someone wanted to hear a song. I found it on the internet over wi-fi and streamed it at 64kbps. I could tell the difference. It was painfully obvious. But here's the thing - the people didn't care because they wanted their song. They didn't care that the quality was 'less than perfect'. It was about the party - not the perceived quality of the recording at that moment. They were drunk - the bar was noisy, and it didn't matter.

We can hem and haw about quality all we want, and in the end none of it matters. I have my stuff ripped from discs at 320kbps currently but almost never use it because my books, rig, and work flow are set up for discs. But moving from CD+G, SCDG, DVD, to VCD hasn't had one single complaint on sound quality.


As for vinyl - yes, it has the best overall quality due to a lack of D/A and A/D conversion. The problem is that most people abuse the vinyl and after time it wears out (not for the least reason being that most people can't properly weight a needle and many more think that 'DJ' needles are great for audio reproduction). I have vinyl I listen to on occasion using a Grado cart and it sounds great. But turntables and vinyl are heavy and I'm getting older and I'm not hauling TT's to events unless it's for a REASON.