This is the closest I could find.stip wrote:*lights the chud signal
- Spoiler: show

Pretty sure that's a frisbee, soooooo......
This is the closest I could find.stip wrote:*lights the chud signal
- Spoiler: show

I usually can't tell but with all the file options given this time I've been trying. The AACs seem flatter to me than the .flacs. Both sound drastically better than the MP3s though.darth_vedder wrote:I know this is a convo for another thread, but if you listen on an ipod, with 320kbps AAC, with decent (not Apple) earbuds, can you tell a difference between 320 AAC and Lossless / FLAC? Is there much difference between Lossless and FLAC? Are the differences worth the extra space?evenslow wrote:Listening to this flac-style for the first time with headphones. Jeff's bass =![]()
It sucks that most people will listen to some dumpy ass 256 and never even hear it.
I got the vinyl (still waiting), and downloaded the lossless. I haven't given it a proper listen on my ipod with my earbuds, but I did listen to LB in my car and it sounded so much fuller / dense than when I streamed it via iTunes. Granted, my car speakers are better then my computer speakers, but still. Regarding my computer speakers, they are some external ones that I bought for like $25. They aren't great, but leaps and bounds better than my laptop speakers.
So, as you can tell, I'm not mush of an audiophile, so I'm wondering if you can really tell the difference between 320 and Lossless? Or are there multiple factors? So like Lossless vs. 320 on my computer speakers, I'm thinking I won't really notice. However, 320 vs. Lossless listening on my ipod with decent earbuds, maybe I will? Or is the ipod / earbuds crappy devices, and the only way to really tell is to have lossless on good stereo equipment (like a good Harmon Kardon receiver) with good speakers (like at least mid shelf JBLs)? Even with good equipment, can you tell the difference between 320 and lossless?
I wish I had the slightest clue about this type of stuff-- I bought Lightning Bolt off iTunes. What type of file did I get?Thejambi wrote:I usually can't tell but with all the file options given this time I've been trying. The AACs seem flatter to me than the .flacs. Both sound drastically better than the MP3s though.darth_vedder wrote:I know this is a convo for another thread, but if you listen on an ipod, with 320kbps AAC, with decent (not Apple) earbuds, can you tell a difference between 320 AAC and Lossless / FLAC? Is there much difference between Lossless and FLAC? Are the differences worth the extra space?evenslow wrote:Listening to this flac-style for the first time with headphones. Jeff's bass =![]()
It sucks that most people will listen to some dumpy ass 256 and never even hear it.
I got the vinyl (still waiting), and downloaded the lossless. I haven't given it a proper listen on my ipod with my earbuds, but I did listen to LB in my car and it sounded so much fuller / dense than when I streamed it via iTunes. Granted, my car speakers are better then my computer speakers, but still. Regarding my computer speakers, they are some external ones that I bought for like $25. They aren't great, but leaps and bounds better than my laptop speakers.
So, as you can tell, I'm not mush of an audiophile, so I'm wondering if you can really tell the difference between 320 and Lossless? Or are there multiple factors? So like Lossless vs. 320 on my computer speakers, I'm thinking I won't really notice. However, 320 vs. Lossless listening on my ipod with decent earbuds, maybe I will? Or is the ipod / earbuds crappy devices, and the only way to really tell is to have lossless on good stereo equipment (like a good Harmon Kardon receiver) with good speakers (like at least mid shelf JBLs)? Even with good equipment, can you tell the difference between 320 and lossless?
McParadigm wrote:True story: I immediately fall in love with every person I ever catch using the Luddites as a reference point.
Strat wrote:Alas, we are RM
Mine usually looks a lot more like thisevenslow wrote:McParadigm wrote:True story: I immediately fall in love with every person I ever catch using the Luddites as a reference point.
- Spoiler: show

This is how I do:McParadigm wrote:Mine usually looks a lot more like thisevenslow wrote:McParadigm wrote:True story: I immediately fall in love with every person I ever catch using the Luddites as a reference point.
- Spoiler: show
Look Out for My Love.

Strat wrote:Alas, we are RM
numbers wrote:This song strikes me as one that will disappear from setlists because it's good.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Except they've opened every show with it so far.harmless wrote:numbers wrote:This song strikes me as one that will disappear from setlists because it's good.
Strat wrote:Alas, we are RM
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
this is a good sign. i think they realized they hit it out of the park w/ this one, so im hopeful it stays around for a while.evenslow wrote:Except they've opened every show with it so far.harmless wrote:numbers wrote:This song strikes me as one that will disappear from setlists because it's good.
Here I am!McParadigm wrote:This is the closest I could find.stip wrote:*lights the chud signal
- Spoiler: show
Pretty sure that's a frisbee, soooooo......
McParadigm wrote:And if you're not really sure what you're listening for, focus on each of the following items in turn (although chud may correct me on some of this):
- Acoustic instruments. A lot of the time, with higher quality files and/or better sound equipment, overlapping tones begin to distinguish themselves from one another. Acoustic guitars are a great place to look for this reveal. Instead of "this acoustic guitar sounds like x," you'll find that the instrument becomes a little more amorphous, with the tiny variations in strum and mic distance throughout the performance revealing a far larger color palette. On a lossless version of a well-recorded part, through high grade monitors or monitor headphones, you almost start to feel like the varying vibrations of each individual string are tickling their way up your spine, creating a feeling that's equally analogous to a great massage, sudden arousal, and getting just a little bit high.
- Reverb and echo. The most subtle frequency shadings should be a little clearer, meaning that the differences in the sounds created by each instrument are more defined. This can sometimes feel like the different parts have greater separation from one another, and greater depth. But the first reveal is usually in the way reverb'd or echoy parts feel inexplicably "deeper," "wetter" (am I turning you on?), and spacier than they otherwise do. The siren guitar on the track of said name would be a good place to investigate this, although Future Days would be, as well.
Bass. Bass guitar gets abused a bit, even on a bass-feature record like this one. A lot of its frequencies have to get shared by drums, guitars, keyboards, and (in the case of this band) even vocals to an extent. Those same small clarifying differences can help it really stand out and feel more "present," somehow, without being any louder, on a quality recording.