sorry, dude, but you don’t know shit about psycho-acoustics.
yeh, man, i don’t know the shit about psycho-acoustics, god damn, i don’t know the shit about about psycho-acoustics, jesus, tell me the shit about psycho-acoustics.
i’d recommend you to go through the r3mix forum, but it’s
down, unfortunately. you just keep on testing encoders based
on their frequency analysis if it makes you happy.
thanks, i’d be really happy to see their frequency analysis, i’d be really happy to hear their music with their ears with their equipment, that so awesome to be some one else, especially from r3mix forum, i just dream about it!
there is no my fault that some smartfaced dudes can’t read carefully the thread and understand that i made these tests for mysefl and just shared some of my thoughts.
ok, fine, even though your conclusions are flaky and - sorry yet again -
lame (no, not the encoder).
if i made some conclusions - i made them for myself, don’t worry, i’m not gonna sell them. and it’s silly to call amplitude-frequency response test lame, afr is main characteristic of sound. if i losing some frequency then it means i get distorted sound, i’m losing original sound. you can’t say afr is shit test, whereas i can say that psycho-acoustics is shit, because it’s just an image that makes the music sound good for human ears. when i use an encoder i want to get the most near sound to original, i want to get all frequencies back. and it’s not only me who said ogg better than mp3, remember that. i wanted to test it, and i’ve tested it. now, don’t even try to prove me the opposite. i’m not a lamer, i work with computers over 10 years, and with music over 7 years. i’ve got my own experience, and it’s most important to me.
judging lossy encoders by their frequency response is like judging people >by their appearance.
that’s a bad simile. encoders is just piece of code that made by people, whereas human’s appearance is dna (which hard to control, and no need to control).
HAHAHAHAHAH!!
This thread is getting very interesting… and funny!
Can someone explain what psycho-acoustics is???
Is it like acoustics of a that has gone mad because traumatic childhood or something???
Is it possible to meassure psycho-acoustics?
If the psycho-acoustic part of a sound is only based on the listeners impression then…
How do I know that what you hear is equal to what I hear? How do I know that “your blue” doesn’t look like “my red”?
psycho-acoustics is a somekind of encoding algorithms, that let the music sounds good for an usual man and use small amount of information for that. check the net for more information, but i’m not sure if much of developers has put their “know how” online… there is just a base info usually.
Is it possible to meassure psycho-acoustics?
dunno, maybe if only measure output quality of psycho-acoustic algorithms can be measured i guess.
If the psycho-acoustic part of a sound is only based on the listeners >impression then… How do I know that what you hear is equal to what I >hear? How do I know that “your blue” doesn’t look like “my red”?
that’s actually true in some sense. but nowadays psycho-acoustic use very small part’s of the music, it give not THAT much of differents between encoded file and original. i think, most biggest losses in “real audio/video” encoding.
and btw, all people hear the sound in different ways, it’s about physiology and other smart bullshit…
