lezama said:

I don't know if I would consider "steath PR" as shameful.. I don't see any blatant falsehoods. A good part of capitalist innovation is making consumers see getting consumers to see wants/desires that they previously did not know they could satisfy. Nearly everything in most people's lifestyles that many consider things they'd prefer not to live without were introduced in the same way. Anyone who's lived with 1080p HD Resolutions on their tv suddenly notices the different when they see poorer quality resolutions on older TV's, but those who only have those poorer resolutions don't see that they're missing anything. The same is true with sound quality.

it's ABSOLUTELY shameful, deceitful marketing of the first class. the worst type of calculated mistruths. the entire video talks about how we are at a nadir of audio quality when it comes to commercial consumer audio "in the last five years." which is absolutely true! this is because compressed mastering and brickwalling in the studio is at an ALL TIME HIGH. however, instead of taking responsibility for their terrible modern digital mastering techniques, they shift the blame onto compression technology that is actually extremely efficient and suitable for almost every home audio use! the highest quality versions of the music they're selling you still won't sound good. it will still be brickwalled all to hell. there's ABSOLUTELY no comparison whatsoever with television resolution. nothing they're selling here will actually make the music sound better. they, as professionals in the audio industry, have the ability to take a stand against these awful mastering techniques like trent reznor from nine inch nails has but they choose not to. it's shameful, shameful, shameful. it's absolutely nothing but pure deceit on their parts, because they know what the real problem is.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

_

I never labeled myself as a professional, I simply making a living exclusively by directing video and animation that gets broadcast, distributed, commissioned and exhibited at major institutions, film festivals, or events.

[Edited 7/21/14 10:27am]

Dude. Your resume and work samples are online. You link to it after every post. Who are you kidding?

.

The $1,400 headphones you bragged about are known to brighten flat audio, favoring the treble.

Are you labeling me as a professional just because I post links?

•

I post links because people hire, commision, or collaborate with me from out of anywhere. example: Even in Prince fanatic world I was approached to donate the writing and designing of the covers, and multipage booklet for what ended up being [snip - I probably shouldn't be talking about that} The important part is that I got a really cool project out of just maintaining an online presence, and I saw my work appear internationally, and even appear in threads on this site.

•

I brought up the headphones originally as a possible means to tell if there there is any difference between the formats of audio, by picking out details which are brought up. In my work, I use them to monitor details. Favoring treble is what makes them good for that.

[Edited 7/21/14 11:35am]

ufoclub said:

treehouse said:

Dude. Your resume and work samples are online. You link to it after every post. Who are you kidding?

.

The $1,400 headphones you bragged about are known to brighten flat audio, favoring the treble.

Are you labeling me as a professional just because I post links?

•

I post links because people hire, commision, or collaborate with me from out of anywhere. example: Even in Prince fanatic world I was approached to donate the writing and designing of the covers, and multipage booklet for what ended up being [snip - I probably shouldn't be talking about that} The important part is that I got a really cool project out of just maintaining an online presence, and I saw my work appear internationally, and even appear in threads on this site.

•

I brought up the headphones originally as a possible means to tell if there there is any difference between the formats of audio, by picking out details which are brought up. In my work, I use them to monitor details. Favoring treble is what makes them good for that.

[Edited 7/21/14 11:35am]

have you ever looked into buying a pair of electrostatic headphones? dynamic cans can only go so far...

scratch said:

lezama said:

I don't know if I would consider "steath PR" as shameful.. I don't see any blatant falsehoods. A good part of capitalist innovation is making consumers see getting consumers to see wants/desires that they previously did not know they could satisfy. Nearly everything in most people's lifestyles that many consider things they'd prefer not to live without were introduced in the same way. Anyone who's lived with 1080p HD Resolutions on their tv suddenly notices the different when they see poorer quality resolutions on older TV's, but those who only have those poorer resolutions don't see that they're missing anything. The same is true with sound quality.

it's ABSOLUTELY shameful, deceitful marketing of the first class. the worst type of calculated mistruths. the entire video talks about how we are at a nadir of audio quality when it comes to commercial consumer audio "in the last five years." which is absolutely true! this is because compressed mastering and brickwalling in the studio is at an ALL TIME HIGH. however, instead of taking responsibility for their terrible modern digital mastering techniques, they shift the blame onto compression technology that is actually extremely efficient and suitable for almost every home audio use! the highest quality versions of the music they're selling you still won't sound good. it will still be brickwalled all to hell. there's ABSOLUTELY no comparison whatsoever with television resolution. nothing they're selling here will actually make the music sound better. they, as professionals in the audio industry, have the ability to take a stand against these awful mastering techniques like trent reznor from nine inch nails has but they choose not to. it's shameful, shameful, shameful. it's absolutely nothing but pure deceit on their parts, because they know what the real problem is.

I get your point. Im not discounting that there are awful mastering techniques. But would you say that there is not a lot of room for improvement of sound quality at the technology level as well? Or are you just saying that the difference would be negligible (not noticeable) if we were comparing apples to apples (good mastered tracks) on lossy vs lossless audio devices?

lezama said:

scratch said:

it's ABSOLUTELY shameful, deceitful marketing of the first class. the worst type of calculated mistruths. the entire video talks about how we are at a nadir of audio quality when it comes to commercial consumer audio "in the last five years." which is absolutely true! this is because compressed mastering and brickwalling in the studio is at an ALL TIME HIGH. however, instead of taking responsibility for their terrible modern digital mastering techniques, they shift the blame onto compression technology that is actually extremely efficient and suitable for almost every home audio use! the highest quality versions of the music they're selling you still won't sound good. it will still be brickwalled all to hell. there's ABSOLUTELY no comparison whatsoever with television resolution. nothing they're selling here will actually make the music sound better. they, as professionals in the audio industry, have the ability to take a stand against these awful mastering techniques like trent reznor from nine inch nails has but they choose not to. it's shameful, shameful, shameful. it's absolutely nothing but pure deceit on their parts, because they know what the real problem is.

I get your point. Im not discounting that there are awful mastering techniques. But would you say that there is not a lot of room for improvement of sound quality at the technology level as well? Or are you just saying that the difference would be negligible (not noticeable) if we were comparing apples to apples (good mastered tracks) on lossy vs lossless audio devices?

with a really good system and a well-mastered track, i think 16bit FLAC sounds stellar. 24bit if you please, and with a great DAC and source technology, that's as good as what you'll get in a studio. and, honestly, 320 mp3 is VERY close to the 16bit flac.

.

do we need wide-scale distribution of 24bit music? i'm unconvinced. i would much rather have well-mastered music at 16-bit FLAC.

wow. now that i do more research, i realize this was stealth marketing not for a lossless audio system, but for Harmon's new CLARI-FI audio processing.

.

http://www.clarifisound.com/

.

this is even more shameful than i previously thought! this "audio restoration" program is nothing like that... all it does is introduce more distortion in the signal! there's no way to "restore" a compressed audio file! what a scam! this is just a GLORIFIED EQUALIZER. i'm even 10x more disgusted with this video now than i was before.

.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/06/27/review-equalizer-apps-do-better-job-than-harman-kardon-clari-fi-on-htc-one-m8/

scratch said:

lezama said:

I get your point. Im not discounting that there are awful mastering techniques. But would you say that there is not a lot of room for improvement of sound quality at the technology level as well? Or are you just saying that the difference would be negligible (not noticeable) if we were comparing apples to apples (good mastered tracks) on lossy vs lossless audio devices?

with a really good system and a well-mastered track, i think 16bit FLAC sounds stellar. 24bit if you please, and with a great DAC and source technology, that's as good as what you'll get in a studio. and, honestly, 320 mp3 is VERY close to the 16bit flac.

.

do we need wide-scale distribution of 24bit music? i'm unconvinced. i would much rather have well-mastered music at 16-bit FLAC.

Gotcha. Im not really an audiophile, but if someone can produce something in high quality at a cost thats not ridiculous Im not opposed to upgrading. I understand the point of your original post now though, so thanks for explaining.

[Edited 7/21/14 20:05pm]

lezama said:

scratch said:

with a really good system and a well-mastered track, i think 16bit FLAC sounds stellar. 24bit if you please, and with a great DAC and source technology, that's as good as what you'll get in a studio. and, honestly, 320 mp3 is VERY close to the 16bit flac.

.

do we need wide-scale distribution of 24bit music? i'm unconvinced. i would much rather have well-mastered music at 16-bit FLAC.

Gotcha. Im not really an audio-file, but if someone can produce something in high quality at a cost thats not ridiculous Im not opposed to upgrading. I understand the point of your original post now though, so thanks for explaining.

I totally understand. but now that i've learned the whole thing was about Clari-Fi audio processing, I'm even more enraged... it's not even a high-quality format! it's just some lame "audio processor" that claims to make mp3 compression sound more "natural."

.

but in reality, that just introduces more distortion to the signal... it really is a glorified EQ. i can't believe this is their 'solution' to the 'problem' of compressed audio...

ufoclub said:

In my work, I use them to monitor details. Favoring treble is what makes them good for that.

[Edited 7/21/14 11:35am]

.

Well that explains one thing you're doing wrong.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

In my work, I use them to monitor details. Favoring treble is what makes them good for that.

[Edited 7/21/14 11:35am]

.

Well that explains one thing you're doing wrong.

How so?

ufoclub said:

treehouse said:

.

Well that explains one thing you're doing wrong.

How so?

Wrong tool. You need accurate sound, and imaging, that's balanced.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

How so?

Wrong tool. You need accurate sound, and imaging, that's balanced.

need...? this is the wrong attitude when it comes to audio equipment imo. he needs what sounds best to him...

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

How so?

Wrong tool. You need accurate sound, and imaging, that's balanced.

I judge imaging and balance with speakers not headphones. That's during devising arrangments, mixing and mastering or even adding effects.

I record takes and edit them with the open ear Sennheiser headphones. That is the detail work I meant.

I let musicians or vocalist monitor themselves during a take with closed headphones.

scratch said:

need...? this is the wrong attitude when it comes to audio equipment imo. he needs what sounds best to him...

For his own listening pleasure? I agree. Of course.

But if you're doing the kind of test he's suggesting, or doing broadcast work, like he's claiming, then you need the right tools or your results will be faulty.

There are reasons they manufacture studio monitors, nearfield, open back, closed, semi-open, extreme isolation, etc. and there are reasons they produce headphones intended specifically FOR production, or evaluation of audio like we're discussing, or FOR your listening pleasure, maybe with treble, or bass boosts, where you don't need mids.

treehouse said:

scratch said:

need...? this is the wrong attitude when it comes to audio equipment imo. he needs what sounds best to him...

For his own listening pleasure? I agree. Of course.

But if you're doing the kind of test he's suggesting, or doing broadcast work, like he's claiming, then you need the right tools or your results will be faulty.

There are reasons they manufacture studio monitors, nearfield, open back, closed, semi-open, extreme isolation, etc. and there are reasons they produce headphones intended specifically FOR production, or evaluation of audio like we're discussing, or FOR your listening pleasure, maybe with treble, or bass boosts, where you don't need mids.

I'm glad you've turned around and are completely agreeing with me with that more detailed restatement of what I posted.

I have to disagree with the author regarding compressed sound.

Case in point:

In 2006 when Prince performed "Fury" on SNL I recorded the show twice(they showed it at least 2x that year) on a cheap Memorex VHS player. It wasn't even "four heads". Simple two head VHS, off my old tv antenna(before digital lol) ...and the sound was AWESOME. Totally full sound, the guitar especially was brilliant and heavy. I'm not an expert so my terminology probably sucks, but I know it sounded amazing, with or without headphones.

For the last 7+ years I've looked everywhere I can look for an equivalent recording of this performance. Mp3, dvd, downloads, etc etc. Now I have five "copies" that sound nothing like my vhs tapes. Nothing. Again, no expert here, but the sound is weak, the guitar range is lame, hard to even call them copies.

I still record what I can on a VHS recorder (any Goodwill has them for under $15). Night and day difference between my recordings and what I finding on any cd, mp3, or dvd.

XNY said:

I have to disagree with the author regarding compressed sound.

Case in point:

In 2006 when Prince performed "Fury" on SNL I recorded the show twice(they showed it at least 2x that year) on a cheap Memorex VHS player. It wasn't even "four heads". Simple two head VHS, off my old tv antenna(before digital lol) ...and the sound was AWESOME. Totally full sound, the guitar especially was brilliant and heavy. I'm not an expert so my terminology probably sucks, but I know it sounded amazing, with or without headphones.

For the last 7+ years I've looked everywhere I can look for an equivalent recording of this performance. Mp3, dvd, downloads, etc etc. Now I have five "copies" that sound nothing like my vhs tapes. Nothing. Again, no expert here, but the sound is weak, the guitar range is lame, hard to even call them copies.

I still record what I can on a VHS recorder (any Goodwill has them for under $15). Night and day difference between my recordings and what I finding on any cd, mp3, or dvd.

If you're recording to the HIFI VHS track, it's basically similar to an FM radio signal from what I remember.

ufoclub said:

I'm glad you've turned around and are completely agreeing with me with that more detailed restatement of what I posted.

If that gets you through the night....your methodology is still wrong.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

I'm glad you've turned around and are completely agreeing with me with that more detailed restatement of what I posted.

If that gets you through the night....your methodology is still wrong.

How would you map out the methodology?

XNY said:

I have to disagree with the author regarding compressed sound.

Case in point:

In 2006 when Prince performed "Fury" on SNL I recorded the show twice(they showed it at least 2x that year) on a cheap Memorex VHS player. It wasn't even "four heads". Simple two head VHS, off my old tv antenna(before digital lol) ...and the sound was AWESOME. Totally full sound, the guitar especially was brilliant and heavy. I'm not an expert so my terminology probably sucks, but I know it sounded amazing, with or without headphones.

For the last 7+ years I've looked everywhere I can look for an equivalent recording of this performance. Mp3, dvd, downloads, etc etc. Now I have five "copies" that sound nothing like my vhs tapes. Nothing. Again, no expert here, but the sound is weak, the guitar range is lame, hard to even call them copies.

I still record what I can on a VHS recorder (any Goodwill has them for under $15). Night and day difference between my recordings and what I finding on any cd, mp3, or dvd.

this proves literally nothing. it was SEVERELY compressed and probably transcoded several times, of course it's going to sound awful. this had nothing to do with mp3 compression though. it's the equivalent of in the video where they showed you clips of songs at 98kbps then "uncompressed" (which was still compressed by youtube) and asked you to "hear the difference!"

.

i'm not saying you should compress the SHIT out of everything to the point where's its unlistenable. but it would have still sounded great in 320 mp3!

ufoclub said:

XNY said:

I have to disagree with the author regarding compressed sound.

Case in point:

In 2006 when Prince performed "Fury" on SNL I recorded the show twice(they showed it at least 2x that year) on a cheap Memorex VHS player. It wasn't even "four heads". Simple two head VHS, off my old tv antenna(before digital lol) ...and the sound was AWESOME. Totally full sound, the guitar especially was brilliant and heavy. I'm not an expert so my terminology probably sucks, but I know it sounded amazing, with or without headphones.

For the last 7+ years I've looked everywhere I can look for an equivalent recording of this performance. Mp3, dvd, downloads, etc etc. Now I have five "copies" that sound nothing like my vhs tapes. Nothing. Again, no expert here, but the sound is weak, the guitar range is lame, hard to even call them copies.

I still record what I can on a VHS recorder (any Goodwill has them for under $15). Night and day difference between my recordings and what I finding on any cd, mp3, or dvd.

If you're recording to the HIFI VHS track, it's basically similar to an FM radio signal from what I remember.

Probably...either way my tapes still sound great, 7+ years later. An old roommate of mine in the 90's had a reel-to-reel recorder that used even wider magnetic tape. Sound was pretty good from what I remember.

XNY said:

ufoclub said:

If you're recording to the HIFI VHS track, it's basically similar to an FM radio signal from what I remember.

Probably...either way my tapes still sound great, 7+ years later. An old roommate of mine in the 90's had a reel-to-reel recorder that used even wider magnetic tape. Sound was pretty good from what I remember.

okay! analog sounds great. we can all agree. when something has been degraded and transcoded fifty times it sounds terrible, we can all agree. this has nothing to do with non-transcoded 320 mp3 compression, which still sounds great. this discussion is completely irrelevant to the main topic, it's clear what you were listening to was a very, very low resolution copy NOT a high quality mp3...

ufoclub said:

XNY said:

I have to disagree with the author regarding compressed sound.

Case in point:

In 2006 when Prince performed "Fury" on SNL I recorded the show twice(they showed it at least 2x that year) on a cheap Memorex VHS player. It wasn't even "four heads". Simple two head VHS, off my old tv antenna(before digital lol) ...and the sound was AWESOME. Totally full sound, the guitar especially was brilliant and heavy. I'm not an expert so my terminology probably sucks, but I know it sounded amazing, with or without headphones.

For the last 7+ years I've looked everywhere I can look for an equivalent recording of this performance. Mp3, dvd, downloads, etc etc. Now I have five "copies" that sound nothing like my vhs tapes. Nothing. Again, no expert here, but the sound is weak, the guitar range is lame, hard to even call them copies.

I still record what I can on a VHS recorder (any Goodwill has them for under $15). Night and day difference between my recordings and what I finding on any cd, mp3, or dvd.

If you're recording to the HIFI VHS track, it's basically similar to an FM radio signal from what I remember.

HiFi VHS had better sound than cassette for sure, and better than FM radio signal.

Of course, the quality of the source is always a factor, but, VHS was a good medium for high quality audio back in the day.

djThunderfunk said:

, but, VHS was a good medium for high quality audio back in the day.

I'm a big fan of tape hiss, drop outs, and stretched out tape too! It warms my heart like comfort food.

treehouse said:

djThunderfunk said:

, but, VHS was a good medium for high quality audio back in the day.

I'm a big fan of tape hiss, drop outs, and stretched out tape too! It warms my heart like comfort food.

Right. Because ALL VHS tapes have hiss. And drop outs. And the tape is stretched.

That's like saying all records are scratched, and warped.

When the options were analog cassette or VHS many audiophiles preferred VHS to archive their recordings. Google it if you doubt me.

djThunderfunk said:

treehouse said:

I'm a big fan of tape hiss, drop outs, and stretched out tape too! It warms my heart like comfort food.

Right. Because ALL VHS tapes have hiss. And drop outs. And the tape is stretched.

That's like saying all records are scratched, and warped.

When the options were analog cassette or VHS many audiophiles preferred VHS to archive their recordings. Google it if you doubt me.

I used to make music with a Tascam 8-track cassette recorder back in the late 80's. I'd record my mixdown master to the HIFI tracks of a VHS tape for safekeeping.

[img:$uid]http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/hardware/images/tascam_424_MKIII_main.jpg[/img:$uid]

•

On the video end of it:

I was one of those guys that had an SVHS player, and figured out the consumer aimed markup scam of expensive blank SVHS tapes could be bypassed by drilling a hole in the case of a high grade regular VHS tape to make it SVHS recordable (this was to record laser discs I'd rent). Homegrown ways as a youngster.

ufoclub said:

I used to make music with a Tascam 8-track cassette recorder back in the late 80's. I'd record my mixdown master to the HIFI tracks of a VHS tape for safekeeping.

[img:$uid]http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/hardware/images/tascam_424_MKIII_main.jpg[/img:$uid]

•

On the video end of it:

I was one of those guys that had an SVHS player, and figured out the consumer aimed markup scam of expensive blank SVHS tapes could be bypassed by drilling a hole in the case of a high grade regular VHS tape to make it SVHS recordable (this was to record laser discs I'd rent). Homegrown ways as a youngster.

OMG! A Tascam. Haven't seen one of those in over 20 years.

djThunderfunk said:

Right. Because ALL VHS tapes have hiss. And drop outs. And the tape is stretched.

Actually, yes, ALL VHS tapes do feature these quirks to some degree. Fact.

Also I was being serious about my nolstalgia for those qualities/defects.

scratch said:

this proves literally nothing. it was SEVERELY compressed and probably transcoded several times, of course it's going to sound awful. this had nothing to do with mp3 compression though. it's the equivalent of in the video where they showed you clips of songs at 98kbps then "uncompressed" (which was still compressed by youtube) and asked you to "hear the difference!"

That was the moment when I lost it. It makes me angry even now.

djThunderfunk said:

ufoclub said:

I used to make music with a Tascam 8-track cassette recorder back in the late 80's. I'd record my mixdown master to the HIFI tracks of a VHS tape for safekeeping.

[img:$uid]http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/hardware/images/tascam_424_MKIII_main.jpg[/img:$uid]

•

On the video end of it:

I was one of those guys that had an SVHS player, and figured out the consumer aimed markup scam of expensive blank SVHS tapes could be bypassed by drilling a hole in the case of a high grade regular VHS tape to make it SVHS recordable (this was to record laser discs I'd rent). Homegrown ways as a youngster.

OMG! A Tascam. Haven't seen one of those in over 20 years.

I still have it! I have some multitrack cassettes I need to put back on that board to digitize and remaster for my audio "scrapbook".