[kabloooie44]

awesome work spazzer, i can truly understand the amount of work you've put in for this; i tag and meta-log music using iTunes, and i sure can guess the amount of hours you put in.

on your first page, there are dated thread links "June 15th" or "May 28th", and those "Main Section" links. Are there duplicates or overlaps in the albums you've posted so far?

Thanks for the wonderful share :)

[wqcr]

Quote: Originally Posted by malec

i cant find links to X ray dog new music in 320... pls help

Here it is (in 320):


Passcode: "cisumwen"

But looks like fake 320...

[Menzo]

Fake 320 lol. Shows how many people there are out there that have no clue what sound is. Better buy them hearing aids.

[satyrido]

Quote: Originally Posted by Menzo

Fake 320 lol. Shows how many people there are out there that have no clue what sound is. Better buy them hearing aids.

It really depends on which quality...
Between 256~320 there's barely any difference at all, no matter what you'll say to me.
You'll say there is difference if you'd want there to be, but there's barely any at all.
Between 192~320 it depends, if the encoding is really good it should be with a slight difference, but not a good one.
Between 128~320 there's a huge difference, but it also depends on the encoding.

The "better buy them hearing aids" is a pretty stupid thing to said, since it really depends on what you want to hear... believe me, if you want to believe that something has a different sound, you'll hear it like that, even if it doesn't (unless it's 96k or something, then it's pretty obvious).
Sheesh, audiophiles!

[sparktank]

i don't know what's going on. but when someone says "fake" quality, sounds like someone transcoded the files, which means you just loss more quality and have less than what you started out with, even if you do upscale.

[Menzo]

Quote: Originally Posted by satyrido

The "better buy them hearing aids" is a pretty stupid thing to said, since it really depends on what you want to hear... believe me, if you want to believe that something has a different sound, you'll hear it like that, even if it doesn't (unless it's 96k or something, then it's pretty obvious).
Sheesh, audiophiles!

You've obviously missed the point and context completely. We're not talking about people transcoding TM albums from 256kbps to 320kbps. 256kbps is fine.

We're talking about people that have absolutely no clue who think that the 64kbps album they downloaded from somewhere would sound 'better' if they uploaded it as a transcoded 320kbps, because it would then say 320kbps. Then other people who see the 320kbps upload will go "OH YAY" and download it, because they have no ears they will end up uploading it labeled as 320kbps leading to people who actually know what 320kbps is getting annoyed at the overall stupidity.

Sheesh, clueless people!

Edit: Oh and in case people don't know, transcoding a lower quality (Eg: 64kbps) mp3 to a higher bitrate (Eg: 320kbps) makes it sound worse than the original. Its like getting someone's forum avatar picture and enlarging it to the size of your desktop wallpaper. IT LOOKS WORSE.

[Enora]

.

[naigoto]

Quote: Originally Posted by Enora

I don't understand either why some are looking for 320kbps or lossless when they can't make the difference with 96kbps, 64kbps, or worse, 64kbps transcoded to 320kbps (for example), which sounds even worse than the original 64kbps file. It's probably not their fault if they can't feel the difference...but then I think that we shouldn't complain we don't have 320kbps or lossless unless we can truly feel the difference with lower quality...? What's the point getting higher quality, then?^^

I think that's everyone's own business, placebo effect works. To be perfectly honest, I always download the best quality available even when I can't tell the difference between MP3 320 and lossless in some cases. It's the strong feeling that I don't want to "miss" anything, maybe I can't tell the difference consciously but I am willing to do everything I can to have the best feeling possible when the track ends, do you know what i mean?

[Enora]

.

[TisoAP]

(Deleted)

[sparktank]

Ars Arcana - The Savage Tongue (27 tracks) Lossless

Quote:

multi-links. single extraction.
i'm guessing interchangeable (.aif with .aif, etc).
password: savagetank
recovery record: 10%, compression: store

Felt like contributing something for a change in the trailer section...

[HaloOfTheSun]

Quote: Originally Posted by naigoto

I think that's everyone's own business, placebo effect works. To be perfectly honest, I always download the best quality available even when I can't tell the difference between MP3 320 and lossless in some cases. It's the strong feeling that I don't want to "miss" anything, maybe I can't tell the difference consciously but I am willing to do everything I can to have the best feeling possible when the track ends, do you know what i mean?

The thing is, in many cases it doesn't matter. Having a FLAC of something that is purely just piano is a lot of wasted HD space. Having an mp3 @128 of a heavy metal song is going to generally be pretty bad quality. Hell, FLAC of a lot of orchestral works are going to be wasted HD space.

On top of that, if it's encoded correctly and is created within a recent timeframe, even an mp3 @128 can sound pretty good due to the advancements made.

On a semi-related note, it's kind of funny that people really can't tell most of the time between different bitrates (within reason) and between a quality mp3 and a lossless file. Kind of like how when surveyed, most college and high school students asked preferred the sound of a song through (low quality) iPod headphones than of a CD played through quality speakers. They said they liked the "sizzle" sound, so now some audio engineers are purposely making music sound that way.

I hate people.

[wqcr]

Quote:

I think that's everyone's own business, placebo effect works. To be perfectly honest, I always download the best quality available even when I can't tell the difference between MP3 320 and lossless in some cases. It's the strong feeling that I don't want to "miss" anything, maybe I can't tell the difference consciously but I am willing to do everything I can to have the best feeling possible when the track ends, do you know what i mean?

And that's why I prefer 24bit WAV/FLAC with 96kHz instead of MP3s or CD quality.
I think that music is not about telling the difference between bitrate, samplerate or dithering. Music is about LISTENING. Well, it was tested many times, if people tells the difference between CD, MP3, DVD-Audio, or vinyl record. And most of them don't recognize even a bad MP3.

What's the point? If someone prefers MP3 over lossless it is usually because of space or compatibility. I don't care if piano still sounds good at 80kbps. I will enjoy it at 4608kbps (24/96) and I don't care if I can't tell the difference, because I want to enjoy the music and not the quality.

[sedna1990]

not share on vagos for not kill this forum.


TERMINUS BY AUDIOMACHINE FLAC 1400 kbits



Country: USA
Manufacturer: Audiomachine
Genre: Soundtrack, Trailer music, Instrumental, Chor
Year: 2009
Format: FLAC
Bitrate: lossless
Quality: 48000Hz, 16-bit, Stereo
Length: 1:40:03

part 2
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XCWPB4J3

part 1
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSJIOJWO