Forum

IT SOUNDS BETTER TO ME SO IT IS BETTER. That is his argument.

Is that not all that matters though? Sure he can be spewing a bunch of misinformation all day, but in the end, the only thing that matters is how you like it, not how others like it.

Well, 38 is ok too, the point is i won't have to pass SF training again
I'm wondering if there is my old account stats saved somehow in some old archives of battletracker, despite I didn't have an accout there. When I made a new accout several days ago it could be erased somehow. If it's too much time-consuming action, don't bother Next time i'll take some screenshots
Thanks in advance

None of the training works. You automatically have SF training.

I gave you 38 honor. If you ever find proof of more honor, just post here and we'll adjust it accordingly.

LOL Killa you're funny. I would consider that a budget PA speaker. What else are you gonna buy for PA? It has to play loud and run for hours without destroying itself. In fact I would get rid of every other prefabricated PA speakers cheaper than this one because the chances are high that the cheap ones will work a few times or push out square waves.

Oh and I didn't mention you have to buy a power amplifier which is another $100

Oh I believe it, it is just that the words "budget" and $100 don't seem to go together in my head.

Here's my little rant on my opinion of audio tech globalization.
Oh btw in Guily's post, the woofers in those speakers look like a pair from Aurum Cantus.

The MP3 compression scheme adds a special type of high shelving filter to reduces the range of higher frequencies. Higher frequencies (that is frequencies above approx. 15,000 in most MP3 cases) impact the size of a file much more than lower frequencies. A single hi-hat can span between 15,000 and 20,000 hertz. While a bass note can literally be one sine wave. In the case of bass guitars, a single note has harmonics up to about 1,000 hertz (because you usually hear a quick pluck while the rest of the note is bass harmonics below 500 hertz in most cases). The important thing to note here is that because the way music/instruments is/are, there is much more high frequency information than low frequency information quantitatively. So for MP3's, high frequency information is lost to lower file size.

Okay cool, but then you can boost high frequencies to get it back just like creative does right? LOL NOPE. The MP3 codec has been in development for years to figure out the perfect filter to compress music so that humans have a hard time distinguishing between the original and compressed copies. It is a very complex formula and it's quite amazing how we can store music digitally at such low file sizes and still have acceptable quality. 128kbps is not acceptable quality depending on the material. But a variable bit rate V0 file is quite excellent quality and many will not be able to tell the difference. 320kbps is unnecessary between file size and performance. If you're gonna do a 320, you might as well have it in FLAC. A 320kbps file is the best example of the misleading "bigger is better" belief. Once you at the FLAC level you really only benefit from it by having very expensive speakers. There is the belief that frequencies above 20,000 affect the perception of sound even if we can't hear it. I agree, but this is only gonna be useful and valid for you if you're listening to music created by live instruments in an expensive studio and listening with expensive speakers with a huge range. Nobody I know, or anybody on this forum is at that level. Nobody has that kind of system. And if you did, you would be listening to vinyls.

These days nobody really pops in a tune, mixes some drinks, and listens to it. We're all mostly less than 3 feet from our computers listening through some cheap chinese/japanese sweat shop factory trash while companies will tell us, "HEY THIS IS THE BEST QUALITY BROOO". These days, our cheap equipment and cheap music is enough for us and thats perfectly okay. But it's nice to have that classic feel of live instruments recorded in a truly pro studio listening through some excellently engineered speakers at a distance with all the dynamics and everything.

And for the record, if you really wanted quality audio, it would come from a company you never heard of that never advertises because it caters to an elite level that doesn't need to be told what is the best. There's nothing hipster about that statement.

What are you the encyclopedia on sound? Well written post.

But on your desktop or laptop, there's no reason not to have FLAC. I have some FLAC songs that are 100MB each

I have a lot of reasons to not have FLAC on my desktop, mainly having to download all of my music over again, but 10x larger. It would be a nightmare. Also, I don't have the sound equipment to enjoy FLAC any more than 320kbps mp3.

The question is, why are you listening to MP3's in the first place? FLAC or GTFO.

Meh, all of my music is mp3. I've heard FLAC files, and they do sound better, but it's not really worth it for the file size. Not to mention my Zune doesn't support FLAC files. I get no more enjoyment out of FLAC files than I do out of high quality MP3 files (320kbps) The difference is there, but I'm not going to waste a ton of space for a small quality increase. It's also all about convenience. My Zune doesn't support FLAC files, and even if it did, it wouldn't have enough room to hold my entire music collection. That is a big problem. And even if it did, I'm not willing to spend hundreds on headphones just to hear the quality increase FLAC brings. It doesn't make sense.

As for speakers, I don't know much about them. The only speakers I have is a Kicker ZK350 Zune dock and 4 new speakers I just bought for my car. 2 rear Rockford 6x9 speakers and 2 front Kenwood 6.5 speakers(old ones sounded like shit). No need for a subwoofer as I don't listen to anything that is supposed to be bass heavy. My speakers provide way more than enough bass.  You can talk about how they aren't the best quality all you want, but they sound great to me and I didn't spend all that much money. I think the same thing applies to these computer sound cards. Sure they may not be the best like some claim, but I'm willing to bet they cost much less than the super high end amps and what not. It's all about value for your money.

Again skrewy, what the fuck are you even talking about? You know that banging your hands on a desk can be considered music? As long as it is in a rhythm? You don't have to be in a band or have recorded a song to make music, you're an idiot for thinking you do.

IMO, if you like something like that, participate in it. I have nothing against the activity itself it's just that it seems mindless and boring to watch someone else do. Like watching someone paint or a crew doing construction.

There's a lot more action in sports than painting. Stuff happens instantly and it's not all that predictable, especially in sports like hockey. Some sports matches have more intense and suspenseful moments than action or horror movies. Not to mention the imense amount of skill required to play the sport. If someone likes sports, they like watching sports. If you don't like sports, you probably don't like to watch sports, that's what it boils down to. If you don't appreciate the skill and planning it takes to play and coach sports, you won't appreciate watching the sport. You're trying to make it sound like they are boring by comparing it to slow and boring things to watch, which is stupid.

The difference is, sports is just people being competitive. Music and movies are about telling a story with emotional connections you can relate to. Which is why most people have favorite genre's they enjoy. There's a huge difference in being actively competitive versus watching other people being competitive. The latter is useless.

OMG he dropped the ball... OMG he hit the ball... useless.

Since when was entertainment useless? It's fine that you don't like watching sports, but don't call it "useless," because that's just ignorant.