I was just browsing anr 'spin-off' from HWZ forums
Spin-off from Home Theater
wow, ClubSnap is doing so much better....
Spin-off from Home Theater
wow, ClubSnap is doing so much better....
Anr of HWZ's spin-off
- Thread starter Shadus
- Start date
- Status
But then that's hifi and home theatre, which less people dabble with (it can cost more than photograpy), so it's not surprising that they got less people.
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
since this thread is abt Hi-fii
can recommend me a non-portable CD-player that can play MP3-CD as well?
i want to play mp3 at home but i dun want to play using the PC, i also dun want portable one like iriver or nomad jukebox
btw, i am using Videologic Crossfire
can recommend me a non-portable CD-player that can play MP3-CD as well?
i want to play mp3 at home but i dun want to play using the PC, i also dun want portable one like iriver or nomad jukebox
btw, i am using Videologic Crossfire
Problem is mp-3 isn't really considered Hifi standard... a good system will reveal all its limitations...
X
Xeviouss
Guest
im curious why there are so many "spin offs"
Isnt it all good if theres already a place setup for u foc....
n theres alot of pple there already....
Or issit that theres too many ******(fill in the blanks) in HWZ oredi...
Isnt it all good if theres already a place setup for u foc....
n theres alot of pple there already....
Or issit that theres too many ******(fill in the blanks) in HWZ oredi...
And of coz, HWZ traffic is too much. All of it banal
Hence, for interest group like us, usually do better to spin-off.
Anyway, there's no such thing as good system for mp3. MP3 itself is a lossly compression. Hence, any if not all hifi system is good enuff.
And for sake of comparing digital vs film
CD itself is not good enuff in some people's opinion as its sampled and not true analog as music should all be...haha.
Conclusion -> Get vinyl :bsmilie:
Hence, for interest group like us, usually do better to spin-off.
Anyway, there's no such thing as good system for mp3. MP3 itself is a lossly compression. Hence, any if not all hifi system is good enuff.
And for sake of comparing digital vs film
CD itself is not good enuff in some people's opinion as its sampled and not true analog as music should all be...haha.
Conclusion -> Get vinyl :bsmilie:
Toshiba 5300 DVD Player. Plays DVD-V, DVD-A, MP3, VCD, CD.
Aiya, forget the MP3. They don't sound good enough on a good hifi system. Try HDCD, XRCD, SACD, DVD-A instead. Or even LPs.
Regards
CK
Dunno, but I have this bookmarked (http://www.xtremeplace.com/yabbse/index.php) to check out their DVD section.
Btw, its wrong to say that any hifi system will show the limitations of mp3...it would depend on the encoder used, bitrate used, and then the quality of the hi fi system. There are sucky systems, and there are also sucky mp3 encoders that give mp3 a bad name.
Btw, its wrong to say that any hifi system will show the limitations of mp3...it would depend on the encoder used, bitrate used, and then the quality of the hi fi system. There are sucky systems, and there are also sucky mp3 encoders that give mp3 a bad name.
hmm....since we're on this, think i'll go read up more about mp3 encoding tonight.
What i know is from my ears. normal music like tht sang by stephanie sun, well, sounds oookay...whether mp3 or CD. Little difference to tell.
But once i get into classical, the difference can be told by ears.
suspect mp3 encoding truncates the upper & lower frequency and interpolates the rest.
anyone knows any good link about mp3 encoding?
Even with a good MP3 encoder/decoder, MP3 is a lossy algorithm. It works fine on pop I suppose, but if you try it on classical.....
And a good hifi really reveals all these flaws. A not-so-good hifi hides them as it does not have enough resolution to reveal them. Even the best MP3 encoder/decoder combo cannot beat the original uncompressed version from CD or other source.
Regards
CK
What bitrate for MP3 will give "CD quality"?
Aw heck... this is another of those questions that people debate *endlessly*. There really is no one answer - it depends on your ears, your equipment, etc. I think it's probably fair to say that 128 Kbps is a bit on the low side, although it may sound fine from some encoders for some songs under some circumstances, whilst 160 Kbps done by a good encoder should sound pretty good to most people under most circumstances.... *but* I know some people will insist on higher standards. Different encoding software really does make a difference - some encoding software produces results that sound pretty awful to me at 128 Kbps, whereas other software produces ok results... e.g. speaking strictly from my own experience, 128 Kbps files from the older versions of Musicmatch Jukebox which used the Xing encoder or from Audiocatalyst often sound *really* poor, whereas BladeEnc (which is free) produces files at 128 Kbps which are often quite acceptable. The LAME encoder, an open source project, is another good free alternative, probably slightly superior to BladeEnc. And the free download of Musicmatch Jukebox now lets you encode at all bitrates using a version of the Fraunhofer encoder. I mostly rip to WAV files, and then encode using either the LAME or Fraunhofer encoder at 160 Kbps at the moment. If I'm not happy listening to the results on earphones, then I'll try 192 Kbps...
More info here
Aw heck... this is another of those questions that people debate *endlessly*. There really is no one answer - it depends on your ears, your equipment, etc. I think it's probably fair to say that 128 Kbps is a bit on the low side, although it may sound fine from some encoders for some songs under some circumstances, whilst 160 Kbps done by a good encoder should sound pretty good to most people under most circumstances.... *but* I know some people will insist on higher standards. Different encoding software really does make a difference - some encoding software produces results that sound pretty awful to me at 128 Kbps, whereas other software produces ok results... e.g. speaking strictly from my own experience, 128 Kbps files from the older versions of Musicmatch Jukebox which used the Xing encoder or from Audiocatalyst often sound *really* poor, whereas BladeEnc (which is free) produces files at 128 Kbps which are often quite acceptable. The LAME encoder, an open source project, is another good free alternative, probably slightly superior to BladeEnc. And the free download of Musicmatch Jukebox now lets you encode at all bitrates using a version of the Fraunhofer encoder. I mostly rip to WAV files, and then encode using either the LAME or Fraunhofer encoder at 160 Kbps at the moment. If I'm not happy listening to the results on earphones, then I'll try 192 Kbps...
More info here
mp3 is acceptable for pop music if you are not particular abt sound quality , as most of the pop recordings are too upfront and beat driven and poorly recorded, so missing nuances and purity of the sound is not very important. If your tastes are more towards classical and jazz and even metal, it is not really acceptable. Actually if the pop recording is well recorded, a good system will make it sound wonderful. Among of the best sounds I ever heard was from LPs, coz I could listen to it even at high volumes without fatigue, even though it was a high end system.
3-4 years or so ago, we did a test on 3 different encoders: Fraunhofer (sp?), Xing and something else (can't remember). The Fraunhofer sounds best among the three. Encoders does make a difference. But no matter how good, it still cannot beat the original (of coz, depends on what music also).
From experience, pop music (which are often overly processed and dynamically compressed) do well on MP3, which also partly explains their popularity. Classical and Jazz, with the large dynamic range and all the subtle nuances of the music sounded flat when MP3ed.
Regards
CK
From experience, pop music (which are often overly processed and dynamically compressed) do well on MP3, which also partly explains their popularity. Classical and Jazz, with the large dynamic range and all the subtle nuances of the music sounded flat when MP3ed.
Regards
CK
LP, being analog, is usually less harsh. Combined with a good tube amp, you get audio nirvana. Analog recordings don't clip as badly as digital also, which partly explains why it's not so harsh.
Still, well recorded, well mastered CDs, SACDs, DVD-A, XRCD, HDCD, etc all sounds pretty good.
Regards
CK
My friend's Faye Wong's Tian Kong XRCD sounds incredible. A wonderful, wonderful recording... HDCD also sounds very clear and dynamic indeed... The ambience for jazz and classical was amazing. No experience with the other digital formats though.
Yups... I know, hahah!
It's a pity so little recording company use these superior encoding formats for their CDs. We deserve it for the amount we pay for CDs. Then only will a good recording get better with a better system.
It's a pity so little recording company use these superior encoding formats for their CDs. We deserve it for the amount we pay for CDs. Then only will a good recording get better with a better system.
- Status
Similar threads
