Gianna Nannini - L´immensita´

RLV - la radio a colori Gianna Nannini L´immensita´ Liguria Levanto La Spezia Tigullio 5 Terre Val di Vara Gianna Nannini - L´immensita´

Gianna Nannini - L´immensita´

Scrivi un nuovo commento

  Tutti i campi sono richiesti

Per inviare il presente modulo inserire nel campo CODICE DI SICUREZZA la sequenza di caratteri mostrati in figura.

Codice - Contatta il webmaster se il codice non viene visualizzato   

  Dichiaro di aver letto e ricevuto le informazioni previste dall'art. 13 ex D. Lgs. 196/2003 e rilascio il consenso al trattamento dei miei dati personali per i fini previsti dall'informativa.

    I vostri commenti

  • The video was disappointing, to tell you the truth, but they´re busy shtooing videos for all the songs on the album so I imagine they couldn´t do a great big lavish Hungry Like the Wolf-style production for all of them. Still, you´d think they´d have saved the big guns for the premiere single. Regardless yum. I´ve not heard the rest of the songs of Adele´s album but I´ll have to I think she´s really quite good. Maybe one of her other tracks is better to drive to?
  • I admit I have a soft spot for Jovanotti. I´ve kept tabs on the guy´s music since the mid-90s. Every so often he has a new song I really like. Say what you will about him, he´s elovved since his uber cheesy ragazzo fortunato days.So yeah, I kind of enjoy that one. And give me time with Ogni Tanto.
  • Just a quick note, but ABR 128 is quite a different beast than CBR 128. ABR x will in 99.9% of cases (with LAME) be condesirably better quality than CBR x. ABR is VBR with much tighter limits, but it can detect the difficult frames and give them more bits.Most of the 128Kbps MP3s still floating around out there are CBR 128. The high end (cymbals, sharp percussion, sibilant vocals) have a distinct watery sound to them, a kind of underwater warbling with a big loss of definition. I can hear this distortion in noisy environments on crap speakers more often than not without an ABX test I just say huh, that sounds like a 128Kbps MP3 and then look at my player and yep. It is.This has only happened to me one or two times in the 14 years of my MP3-enabled life with 192, and never higher.Unscientific, but there you go. I use -V 0 for encoding my CDs, and I´m encoding my dad´s entire giant collection of classical music to put on an ipod so he can press one button and shuffle by album on wireless speakers all through the house. I´m using -V 2 for that.Interestingly, with most classical music, -V 0 in my prior tests almost always uses a much LOWER bitrate than rock/pop music. Symphonies and operas may sound exquisite in -V 0 when it´s allocated 170Kbps, whereas garden variety rock, folk pop, pop music generally takes 190-240Kbps at -V 0. [url=]meihptzqrp[/url] [link=]vqfmxdmnyb[/link]
  • If you can´t tell WAVs and MP3s apart, then play them back at 22.05khz and you will ! :) It is important that you _PLAY_ them back at 22.05khz, _NOT_ to ralempse them to 22.05khz and then play. This works even at 320kbps CBR or highest VBR. They are worlds apart because the psychoacoustic packing that mp3 is based on, does not work anymore when you play half the speed. Same goes for 11.025khz ofcourse, even 32khz works. MP3 is crap. It only fools your ears. Ofcourse I listen MP3s even myself, upsampling them to 96khz/24bit on Foobar2000, but what comes to data integrity MP3 is crap. It is not the same signal by far anymore. The same goes for OGG, AAC=MP4 and most other packers.I found quite a nice utility called WavPack that could pack stuff to 1:4 with very little difference, even if you played back at 22.05khz. I would subjectively say the signal is 99.8% the same. But it you go lower than 1:4, say 1:8, then WacPack quickly becomes garbage. I needed a packer that would preserve information as much as possible but pack more than FLAC. So I found WavPack. You don´t do anything with it for normal music listening purposes, but it´s nice app if you need to preserve signal AND pack it. This gave me a whole new view of psychoacoustic packing like MP3.
  • Thanks for sharing your erncxiepees in such detail.Naturally, I am skeptical when I hear about audible differences between a 320 kbps MP3 file and PCM. I would suspect an old encoder (old versions of LAME can introduce artifacts in very specific cases) or poor test design (for example, treating 5/7 as a success, repeating an ABX test until you get the result you expect even one re-run can dramatically change the statistical validity!).As you see, in order to accept your conclusion, I would have to believe that you did every single thing correctly in your tests. And I have no reason to believe that, or believe the opposite.I also wonder if you were ABX-ing whole tracks or segments of a few seconds, and how many times you had to play back a segment in order to reach a decision. (I would submit that if you have to listen 10 times until you finally hear the difference, then the difference is of little practical importance. Of course purists, by definition, won´t care about practical ; they want identical.)The advice to rip everything into FLAC in order to be future-proof is not without merit, but there are also downsides. It may all fit on your hard drive, but will it fit on your iPod? And how long will it take to sync your iPod over USB? [url=]rgnqjy[/url] [link=]qdnxosv[/link]

Stampa  Segnala ad un amico