CDs are for the weak!

[Rozard]

Snot owes me my sandwhich back that they ate last time they came over...and George Lowe STILL owes me my $20 back...

wtf did you do, dig up Lynn Strait?!?

lol, that's what I said

[derobert]

As an audiophile I am appauled as top how easily the "10" score is handed out to an AMV in sound quality.

No more easily than all the other categories, I suspect.

It sickens me that some people can't tell the difference between an original uncompressed rip (granted that never occurs in a distrobution quality video, but follow me), and a 128KBps MP3 that has pased hand on a p2p more than enoug htimes to make the RIAA cringe.

Absent corruption, the number of times you copy an MP3 is irrelevant. But, yes, there are MP3s with crappy quality, and generally 128 doesn't sound as good as uncrompressed.

What has happened to music?

Someone came up with new forms of noise called "metal", etc. and convinced everyone to listen to them, AFAICT.

And why is it people are buying more and more into this sheepish "digital is better" mind set.

Possibly, because it generally is?

Its not even feasible for a couple of 1's and 0's to EMULATE what true sound waves are capable of.

Emulating what sound waves are capable of is irrelevant. All you need to do is represent what the human ear is capable of hearing, and CDs are very, very good at that. So are most compressed digital formats.

Think a CD is the best of the best? Listen to brand new LP just once.

Then, using reasonable equipment, digitize that sound and put it on a CD. Now, can you ABX them appart in a true double-blind test? Assuming you didn't botch the digital transfer, no, you can't. And yes, its very important that you transfer the sound from the record to the CD; a commercial CD of the same thing will be different, if for no other reason than the phonograph's attenuation of certain frequencies, a problem which CDs don't suffer.

http://www.elpj.com/

I don't see pricing on their site, but I'm sure for hundreds less, you can have a perfectly good CD player, that will more accurately reproduce the music.

Invest in one of these bad boys and show the community how pathetic their digital media really is.

Only if the community to which you attempt it is easily swayed by suggestion and does not know the importance of proper ABX testing.

[Flint the Dwarf]

What has happened to music?

Someone came up with new forms of noise called "metal", etc. and convinced everyone to listen to them, AFAICT.

That better not be a slight to metal. *shakes fist*

[Otohiko]

I've tried to be a vinilophile, and though I did hear some very nice things out of vynils at the library, I came (by powers of logic) to the conclusion that there's nothing to be gained from taking an analogue format that suffers adversely from external interference (dust, scratches), digitizing it for the purpose of video making, and then pretending it sounds better than a digital source that was well, digital since its' master. And digitally making a video out of that.

Well played Pilk.

***

Personally, and this may be a side effect of screwing up my ears with too much loud music, but I really can't tell above 192kbps. No, even 160. I encoded all my videos at 160, and I'll be damned if I'm tempted to do any more

[Mr Pilkington]

And why is it people are buying more and more into this sheepish "digital is better" mind set.

Possibly, because it generally is?

Okay, my inane rant might be mostly for my own personal amusement, and to see the reaction of said shock value upon the .org system as a whole. But this statement right here is why I get so easily angered by people in an round music. That being said....



....How the shit do you figure!?
A simple series of 1's and 0's could even come close to what at rue phonograph can create! This manor of thinking is just ignorant. Even an analog stream (as electric LP players produce) would be far superior, at the very least closer.
Mark my words, in a matter of 5 years this "digital" phase will be replaced by an "analog" craze.

[Otohiko]

I'll repeat my question: how is this relevant to AMV's which, as far as I'm aware, are all digital these days to start with?

[Mr Pilkington]

I'll repeat my question: how is this relevant to AMV's which, as far as I'm aware, are all digital these days to start with?

That was the irrony of my statement.
A cookie to you for figuring it out.
But it remains that the whole "CD Quality" digi audio can be exceded with a superior LP rip. Not perfect but it is better.

[Otohiko]

Point taken.

But what sort of format would you use for the audio in the AMV?

The only REAL solution to this 'problem' is just playing the original LP track to the synched video on screen. Otherwise for online distribution... I think something converted from CD to Lame MP3 (seems to be the standard in AMV's these days...) would probably adapt better than something going from LP to Lame.

[Flint the Dwarf]

....How the shit do you figure!?

Because CDs are more convenient, and there is quality in convenience. I find it amusing that you get so upset over so small a difference though.

[Scintilla]

....How the shit do you figure!?

Because digital media are less susceptible to the external interference that Otohiko mentioned (to the point where it affects the audio)?