rhythm guitar on my RTA 11T

aud10n3wb13

Hi folks,

I uploaded an mp3 to my Ipod Touch. The sound of the rhythm guitar on my Ipod sounds like a real guitar with the metal strings. On my RTA 11T using the same mp3, it sounds like a classical guitar using a nylon string. What are ways so I can make it sound almost as close to the rhythm guitar?

Thanks.

Neil

zingo

Try not using mp3s or other compressed formats. Your RTA 11Ts will show flaws in mp3s that headphones will not.

aud10n3wb13

zingo wrote: »

Try not using mp3s or other compressed formats. Your RTA 11Ts will show flaws in mp3s that headphones will not.

Ok, I will do another test tonight if time permits.

Thanks.

aud10n3wb13

Or is there any 448k audio bitrate wav test file that I can download to test?

Marty913

aud10n3wb13 wrote: »

Or is there any 448k audio bitrate wav test file that I can download to test?

Just my opinion but I have done the "bit rate fight" even though I don't consider myself an especially critical listener. I have experimented with everything up to 320 fixed and while it all sounds fine (or at least OK) with headphone and/or car adapter it just doesn't translate very well to great speakers. I can't count the articles, scientifically based or not, that claim "perceptual transparency" takes over somewhere between 192 and 250. Bulls**t, at least for me.

I finally bit the bullet, bought a couple 30gb players, and re-converted everything to Lossless (FLAC or WMA) where the bit rates run around 800 to 1100. I would encourage you to experiment as I'm sure different types of music are different and of course people's hearing varies. For me at least, compressed music is right up there with taking a shower with your clothes on.

heiney9

Marty913 wrote: »

I finally bit the bullet, bought a couple 30gb players, and re-converted everything to Lossless (FLAC or WMA) where the bit rates run around 800 to 1100. I would encourage you to experiment as I'm sure different types of music are different and of course people's hearing varies. For me at least, compressed music is right up there with taking a shower with your clothes on.

Just to make the above statement more correct as to FLAC files. They are the exact same bit rate as std .WAV or .CDA file which is 1411kbps. FLAC uncompresses on the fly so you get the full bit rate upon output as opposed to lossy compression which is either fixed at the bit rate or is variable between a max. and min. bit rate which is considerably lower than 1411kbps. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 128kbps-320kbps are the most common.

I'm not all that familiar with WMA as I haven't used it much and what I've heard FLAC sounds better and with FLAC you can make bit perfect copies.

H9

dbnh

zingo wrote: »

Try not using mp3s or other compressed formats. Your RTA 11Ts will show flaws in mp3s that headphones will not.

I'm not often a fan of compressed files. That being said, I've found that a nice headphone rig (quality phones / aftermarket headphone cable, headphone amp, source, cables, etc. can run rings around a number of quality speaker setups in terms of resolution, imaging, etc.; thus, I'm not sure I hold the same opinion as in the quotation.

Anyway, I'd think that both the speakered and phone systems could show flaws w/MP3 formats. However, if the IPod is used as the source for both systems, and with a non-Vinnie Rossie IPOD (RedWine Audio) at that, I wonder if both set-ups wouldn't somehow be sonically unsatisfactory / unsettling. The DACs in the non-Rossi IPODs sound so limiting and forgettable - I note my daughter in college seems to be able to get her ears around the limitations of stock IPods and the advantage of some I-Mods.

YMMV.

Marty913

heiney9 wrote: »

Just to make the above statement more correct as to FLAC files. They are the exact same bit rate as std .WAV or .CDA file which is 1411kbps. FLAC uncompresses on the fly so you get the full bit rate upon output as opposed to lossy compression which is either fixed at the bit rate or is variable between a max. and min. bit rate which is considerably lower than 1411kbps. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 128kbps-320kbps are the most common.

I'm not all that familiar with WMA as I haven't used it much and what I've heard FLAC sounds better and with FLAC you can make bit perfect copies.

H9

Don't want to hijack a thread but this does seem relevant to the original question. H9 is correct (he usually is). There are religious camps set up for both WMA & FLAC zealots so I won't go there (I have both). H9's point is that Lossless is the way to go if you can and I couldn't agree more. Having said that, if you download all your music that is probably not going to be an option. You're going to be stuck with ACC, MP3, WMA Lossy, etc. and your max bit rate is probably going to be 320 (either fixed or variable) and if your using traditional download services you're probably getting 128 variable. If you download MediaMonkey (free) it's pretty easy to play around ripping to all of the formats & bit rates so I encourage experimentation.

If you do (or can) use FLAC or WMA-Lossless, there really are no quality trade-offs between the two. Both are 100% lossless & both produce similar file sizes (24-25K for 4 minutes) and both maintain frequencies of 44,100 and bit rates typically in the 800 - 1000 range. Both will rip a song in 15-20 seconds. FLAC allows for adjustable compression levels, WMA does not. FLAC is open source but not supported by some players & software and tagging is problematic. WMA on the other hand, is dependent upon the evil Microsoft empire. You probably can't go wrong with either.