craigb

Peter's Esoteric Name Is Sue?

Phrase Ensconcement Needs Inventive Structuring! ?

And... Bubbles is back!

Yoko's Greatest Hits? ?

My 2 cents (which means I'm probably due change ?). As I've posted before, back in 2003-4 I had a $4,000 stereo setup and tested .wav's and .mp3's at all sorts of resolutions. From an intellectual stance, I know a person can realize a much larger range than is usually specified (20 Hz to 20,000 Hz); I even have devices I used during my PhD work that go up to 100,000 Hz (like an Echofone Ultrasonic Listening System first created to attempt to communicate with dolphins). Although you may not consciously hear frequencies outside of the usual range, we found evidence that a person IS getting some benefits, primarily in the accelerated learning area. However, from a more realistic point of view, I had started importing all of my music to hard drives and the space usage for wave files was excessive! Back then, I had to have a multi-bay external hard drive just to hold a small portion of my collection. In the early 2000's, the largest hard drives typically available were only 250 GB and I had four of them for 1 TB total. For reference, here's one example of the file size differences: A quick calculation tells me that, if I had kept everything as .wav files, my current collection would require about 35 TB's to store! So, back to the tests. I created a sample .wav track that had short portions of several songs from different genres. I then converted that track into all the different file types and resolutions I wanted to test and appended these to the end of the original .wav file. I then put all of them into a playlist (I named each track to easily see what it was). I then shuffle played those so I wouldn't know what was being played ahead of time. As I listened, first without headphones, then with, I wrote down comments about the track before checking the file name. The results were interesting to me. I could easily hear the differences between the .wav reference track and all resolutions below 192 kbps, so I removed those and retested. Even with the decent gear I was working with, I really didn't notice anything that made me want to use a resolution above 192 kbps, so that's what I went with. While this information isn't an exact match to the topic because I'm talking about music I'm listening to, I thought it might be interesting. I should also note that whenever I'm creating a new audio track that I actually go in the other direction. I always use tracks and stems that are higher quality than what a resulting CD of 16-bit/44.1 kHz would be (typically 24-bit/96 kHz). This allows me to run them through things like effects processors without losing quality (like how the accumulation of rounding errors of old gear basically left you with something like a 14-bit song back in the day!). My thinking is that, if you start with the highest quality, you can always downgrade it. I use this same approach with graphics and video. YMMV! ?

Tanks! I've been having a tough couple of weeks and needed something. Heh, doesn't that first track remind you of certain other bands? Kind of like Joy Division meets Bauhaus.

Did you see the movie about bad smells? Personally, I thought it stunk...

(Gee, I hope Bill doesn't remember Strummy's true regard for Royalty! ?) ?

Is that a goosebump? ?

It's always time for another silly music cartoon! ??

Dang, getting good threads around here is like pulling teeth! ? ?

If you didn't like that one, don't watch the one about bovines! It was a lot of bull!

It may be a New Year, but it's still Monday...

We now return you to Steve's unusual choice of a Stranglers song! ?

If you right-click on the video, grab the URL, then paste it into a new tab, you can see what it was trying to play. Then I copy the title and put it into the YouBoob search bar to get this:

They would only be contested if someone declared that Ringo wrote 1,000 songs with The Beatles (just putting this into context).

The idea for this thread came out of a couple of posts in the "Listening" thread. I was originally going to just target the vocals (and I definitely would love to hear some submission from you with unreal vocals!) but, sometimes, there's more to a song that sends you into orbit. Heck, sometimes it's just a part of a song! When Teri Nunn from Berlin sings "Sorry!" on the 1983 song Metro I still get that chill up my spine. Ok, you first! What songs do it for you? ?

Can't argue with that assessment! My favorites are definite Adagio and, to a much lesser degree, SOS. For me, there are parts of the following song where the voice does give me goosebumps. Some of it is due to the effects treatment (you'll know what I mean when you listen). Hmm... I think this may be a good subject for its own thread!

After listening to the entire Poets of the Fall discography (twice), tonight I'm taking in a four-octave(+) range. ?

Maybe you need this? ??

Ah. I've never heard of that show.