Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Smith wrote:
I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time. Regards, AAC sounds like ****. Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 9, 3:51*pm, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote: I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time. Regards, AAC sounds like ****. *Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes. Subject restored... |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 9, 11:58*am, DigitalRadioScams
wrote: On Sep 9, 3:51*pm, dave wrote: John Smith wrote: I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time. Regards, AAC sounds like ****. *Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes. - Subject restored... DRS - Your 'Sanity' Not . . . -wrt- HD-Radio Dementia . . . -and- Anti HD-Radio OCD . . . -get-help- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/9/2010 12:51 PM, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote: I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time. Regards, AAC sounds like ****. Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes. That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit .... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both true and false is worthless. Regards, JS |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 9, 3:05*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 12:51 PM, dave wrote: John Smith wrote: I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time. Regards, AAC sounds like ****. Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes. That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit ... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both true and false is worthless. Regards, JS Subject restored... |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Smith wrote:
That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit ... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both true and false is worthless. Regards, JS aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:
... aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV. Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err, special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32 ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is made uncomfortable! ROFLOL Regards, JS |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 9, 7:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote: ... aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV. Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect a pea placed under her mattress! *You are special, special ed ... err, special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32 ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is made uncomfortable! *ROFLOL Regards, JS Subject restored... |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:08 pm, John wrote: On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote: ... aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV. Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err, special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32 ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is made uncomfortable! ROFLOL Regards, JS Subject restored... 128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not really a pleasure to listen to. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/9/2010 8:33 PM, dave wrote:
... 128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not really a pleasure to listen to. This: "Audio (MP3) 32 kbit/s – MW (AM) quality 96 kbit/s – FM quality - This is questionable since FM broadcast is transmitted in analog 30hz-15khz. Similarly one cannot compare directly an LP record to CD using kbit/s. 128–160 kbit/s – Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be obvious (e.g. lack of low frequency quality and high frequency "swashy" effects)[citation needed] 224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality" from he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else. Regards, JS |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Keefe Bartels came a'knockin - LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! | Shortwave | |||
Some of you may dismiss Keefe Bartels, but they have direct evidence | Shortwave | |||
Keefe Bartels HD Radio investigation - someone figured out the inevitable | Shortwave | |||
Keefe Bartels investigation into HD Radio | Shortwave | |||
iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!! | Shortwave |