Re: [LAU] Lossy compression quality etc. [WAS] Re: Music: Too Late for Goodbyes ?

On Fri, September 29, 2017 10:42 am, Arnold Krille wrote: 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