On Fri, September 29, 2017 10:42 am, Arnold Krille wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:38:38 +0200 Lorenzo Sutton
>> http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 4 out of 6 is not that bad, is it?
Same for me. I count it as 4.5 out of 6, on one I confused the 320kb/s
and the uncompressed, but 320kb/s is considered to be relatively high
quality. My room has too much noise, perhaps I should try again with
headphones.
I thought the Suzanne Vega solo vocal would be difficult, because of the
limited frequency range of a solo voice. It seems like the limited
dynamic and frequency range would give the most options for the compressor
to assign bandwidth, but that one I determined correctly.
The Neal Young selection I confused the uncompressed and 320kb/s version;
not so bad considering the age of the source material, it was probably
limited in high frequency content to begin with because of the age of the
analog tapes.
I was completely wrong on the Coldplay selection (I picked the 128kb/s
version as the "best"), all of the versions sounded so bad I decided it
must have been some sort of odd artistic choice, every version was
muffled, distorted, and synthetic sounding to me. Hard to understand why
someone would do that with 24 bit digital recording capability and budget
for quality recording gear. The drums sounded like they were made from
cardboard, or were in a different room with the door closed.
-- Chris Caudle _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-userReceived on Sat Sep 30 00:15:01 2017
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 30 2017 - 00:15:01 EEST