MP3's and Wolves

Celestialwolf · Post by **Celestialwolf** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:18 am

I once read somewhere that if a canine were to listen to mp3's they wouldn't sound as good as they do to humans. The origional CD-quality recording has a higher range of sound, even though humans can't hear it. MP3's remove that part of the sound, making the file smaller.

I guess that means werewolves won't be carrying around ipods!

white · Post by **white** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:27 am

As if the little in-ear headphones would fit anyway.

Besides, I suspect it'd be hard to get the volume low enough that it's comfortalbe to us and still maintain some good control over it.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:12 pm

Hehe. Then:

Humans: iPod

Werewolves: CD-player

Or, you know, listen to your MP3's in human form.

white · Post by **white** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:32 pm

Or use a better format.

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:00 pm

What's scary is, I can sometimes tell the difference! There's a certain "murphling" of high pitched sounds, sounding kind of washed.

I suspect werewolves would be very discriminating audiophiles. They'd hear the difference between 128 kb/s mp3s (which is my usual archival format) and 192 kb/s, possibly discriminating the 256 and 384 high end formats as well, which compress less and take up a lot more hard drive space.

Still, the convenience and portability of mp3s over uncompressed wav files make them ideal. A werewolf audiophile librarian might insist on keeping twenty or thirty hard drives to rip all his or her CDs to hard drive uncompressed in this day and age, before the 8 terabyte hard drive will be your standard tablet PC running Windows 2012. (Laugh now, but come 2011, when a search for "Windows 2012" turns up this post, people will find it spooky how on the mark it will be.)

Werewolf audiophiles might even prefer vinyl over CDs, since CDs are still digital, and might sound "pixelated." Vinyl is high-maintainance, but I still consider it history's greatest format. People who cared for their LP records in 1955 can listen to them today. Few other formats can offer that kind of history. My cassettes from the eighties are sounding awfully fuzzy, and some of my CD-Rs can't seem to make it through this decade without skipping and giving up the ghost.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:19 pm

Scott Gardener wrote:Still, the convenience and portability of mp3s over uncompressed wav files make them ideal. A werewolf audiophile librarian might insist on keeping twenty or thirty hard drives to rip all his or her CDs to hard drive uncompressed in this day and age, before the 8 terabyte hard drive will be your standard tablet PC running Windows 2012. (Laugh now, but come 2011, when a search for "Windows 2012" turns up this post, people will find it spooky how on the mark it will be.)

I'd keep everything I rip in uncompressed PCM now if I could just have all the metadata I have in an ID3 tag in a WAV file.

Scott Gardener wrote: Werewolf audiophiles might even prefer vinyl over CDs, since CDs are still digital, and might sound "pixelated." Vinyl is high-maintainance, but I still consider it history's greatest format. People who cared for their LP records in 1955 can listen to them today. Few other formats can offer that kind of history. My cassettes from the eighties are sounding awfully fuzzy, and some of my CD-Rs can't seem to make it through this decade without skipping and giving up the ghost.

They might be able to play it, but if it's gotten any regular use over the past 50 years, the audio quality will have degraded. Unless you have one of those (feindishly expensive, last time I checked) turnables that reads the record with a laser, the very act of playing the record degrades the audio quality. (There are other problems with vinyl, like the fact that you can't have as much bass in a recording as compared to a CD, since the needle will jump.)

Evil One · Post by **Evil One** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:04 am

Lupin wrote: (There are other problems with vinyl, like the fact that you can't have as much bass in a recording as compared to a CD, since the needle will jump.)

That all depends on where and how you have the turntable sitting. I have mine on a wall mounted shelf about five feet off the ground and about 20 feet from the speakers, far enough that air vibrations won't effect it and of course the wall won't vibrate enough to make the record jump, unless you've got the speakers right up against the it.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:32 am

Evil One wrote:That all depends on where and how you have the turntable sitting. I have mine on a wall mounted shelf about five feet off the ground and about 20 feet from the speakers, far enough that air vibrations won't effect it and of course the wall won't vibrate enough to make the record jump, unless you've got the speakers right up against the it.

No, from what I was told, at low frequencies, it isn't the action of the speakers on the needle, but the action of groove itself on the the needle. (Too much bass caused problems cutting records as well.) But I've never masterd vinyl records myself.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:04 am

Scott Gardener wrote:What's scary is, I can sometimes tell the difference! There's a certain "murphling" of high pitched sounds, sounding kind of washed.

I suspect werewolves would be very discriminating audiophiles. They'd hear the difference between 128 kb/s mp3s (which is my usual archival format) and 192 kb/s, possibly discriminating the 256 and 384 high end formats as well, which compress less and take up a lot more hard drive space.

Still, the convenience and portability of mp3s over uncompressed wav files make them ideal. A werewolf audiophile librarian might insist on keeping twenty or thirty hard drives to rip all his or her CDs to hard drive uncompressed in this day and age, before the 8 terabyte hard drive will be your standard tablet PC running Windows 2012. (Laugh now, but come 2011, when a search for "Windows 2012" turns up this post, people will find it spooky how on the mark it will be.)

Werewolf audiophiles might even prefer vinyl over CDs, since CDs are still digital, and might sound "pixelated." Vinyl is high-maintainance, but I still consider it history's greatest format. People who cared for their LP records in 1955 can listen to them today. Few other formats can offer that kind of history. My cassettes from the eighties are sounding awfully fuzzy, and some of my CD-Rs can't seem to make it through this decade without skipping and giving up the ghost.

*gasp* I'm shocked!! No mention of SACD and DVD-Audio!!! Those formats blows CDs out of the water!! And since Blue-Ray and HD-DVD is around the corner, that means more room for high quality sound.

Evil One · Post by **Evil One** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:26 pm

Lupin wrote:
Evil One wrote:That all depends on where and how you have the turntable sitting. I have mine on a wall mounted shelf about five feet off the ground and about 20 feet from the speakers, far enough that air vibrations won't effect it and of course the wall won't vibrate enough to make the record jump, unless you've got the speakers right up against the it.
No, from what I was told, at low frequencies, it isn't the action of the speakers on the needle, but the action of groove itself on the the needle. (Too much bass caused problems cutting records as well.) But I've never masterd vinyl records myself.

My bad, thought you meant during playback

Celestialwolf · Post by **Celestialwolf** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:44 am

Figarou wrote:*gasp* I'm shocked!! No mention of SACD and DVD-Audio!!! Those formats blows CDs out of the water!! And since Blue-Ray and HD-DVD is around the corner, that means more room for high quality sound.

Heh. I didn't even know about those. I mean, I've heard of blue-ray, but that's about it.

Also, I have about 2,560 songs (11.2 gb) of mp3's that have taken a while to accumulate. I don't think I'll be switching to another format anytime soon!