What I have an issue with is singers who. For instance, I actually enjoy Cher or Galantis' use of AutoTune because it was used in a creative way that no one had ever done before, but more so because it was used to enhance their particular performances during the songs they heavily implemented it on, and was never designed to mask imperfections in the vocals. There's no dynamic range to pick out the nuances, and that sounds bad.Īs long as the construction worker used the hammer, drill, or backhoe appropriately, that's OK, just like the use of AutoTune. Open any modern song and look at the wave form and it's absolutely slammed to the limit. The loudness wars on the other hand, that's a pain. Would you get mad at a construction worker using a drill or a digger? I can understand people seeing it as cheating, but it is a tool. Good test albums to actually hear the difference between bitrates would be older versions of Pink Floyd's The Wall or Guns N' Roses Chinese Democracy as they aren't mastered using cheap tricks to get noticed right away.įull disclosure: I love my modern-day shit-mastered EDM and pop tracks just as much as Linus himself does, but it doesn't mean we can't also appreciate real music mastered back in the days when you had to listen for the faint sound of the strings in a hard rock song just to enjoy them.Īuto tune would be as much my issue to be honest, it's a tool that many musicians and band use for the whole process. This is extremely simplified though, as your headphones, playback hardware/software, or even ears will affect sound differently.īear in mind that this only applies to tracks that are mastered properly in the studio to begin with, meaning that almost every modern-day track will still sound like shit because studio's almost always master for perfect beat replication using loudness equalization and extreme levels of compression, and more disgustingly, auto-tune vocals of so-called "singers" as if it were going out of style. With decent headphones in a quiet-ish home-based setting, tracks that have cymbals and other high frequency sounds will sound noticeably crisper at MP3 -b 320 than at a lower encoding quality because there's more headroom to store the extra frequencies.
I'm not sure if it's just me being picky, but I can feel more clarity and range in 320 as opposed to 192, is there any major audio differences between them, in your experiences?Ĭompletely depends on a large variety of factors, but if we're just talking about MP3 files, then yes, most people can hear the difference between MP3 -b 320 and MP3 V2 encoding. I'm one for high quality music, and I happened to notice some of my Google Play Music tracks are 192kbps and others 320kbps, which is obviously annoying.
0 kommentar(er)
