Paschalis I.
MusicProductionTips.net
I didn't click your link cause I've checked it out sometime before and I know what they're saying. Izotope rocks, but what they say is that a lossless file is better than a lossy file.
Of course it is, we don't need a company specialized in mastering to tell us that. Logic is enough.
The only thing I can't stand is when some people swear by hearing a difference between 320kbps and a wav file and I really can't stand this.
There's a psychological feeling about it that your brain makes you think you really hear a difference, just like people are fighting about DAWs and if cubase sounds better than pro tools.
The psychological trick really is in favor to your beliefs.
For example, if we start an argument about something, just because you believe something so strong then when proof comes, it's really hard for your ego/brain to accept it,
so you are stronger in your belief than before that there's really a difference, because truth hurts.
Out of the times that I've posted in forums blind tests, the people that swore by WAVs vs 320kbps, really didn't find the right one.
They got so offended and they could not get over the fact they were wrong, that accused me of false results, reported me and deleted my topics for saying lies (lol).
Other than that, we both agree that a lose-less file is better than a lossy file, but if a lossy file removes data that our ears could not even hear in the first place,
then for sure I will enjoy my music that way if data capacity is a concern. Other than that I don't really care about megabytes, I only care to not lose what my ears can hear.
Lossy does not always means worse, it really depends on how you remove data. In a 128kbps file, difference can be heard. Even in 256kbps can be heard. 320, not really.
All of these are lossy, but the real concern is "did I remove something that my ear can hear or it couldn't hear it anyway and no-one bats and eye?".
So, in general we agree but here's why I can't stand some people with huge egos. That's all.
Of course it is, we don't need a company specialized in mastering to tell us that. Logic is enough.
The only thing I can't stand is when some people swear by hearing a difference between 320kbps and a wav file and I really can't stand this.
There's a psychological feeling about it that your brain makes you think you really hear a difference, just like people are fighting about DAWs and if cubase sounds better than pro tools.
The psychological trick really is in favor to your beliefs.
For example, if we start an argument about something, just because you believe something so strong then when proof comes, it's really hard for your ego/brain to accept it,
so you are stronger in your belief than before that there's really a difference, because truth hurts.
Out of the times that I've posted in forums blind tests, the people that swore by WAVs vs 320kbps, really didn't find the right one.
They got so offended and they could not get over the fact they were wrong, that accused me of false results, reported me and deleted my topics for saying lies (lol).
Other than that, we both agree that a lose-less file is better than a lossy file, but if a lossy file removes data that our ears could not even hear in the first place,
then for sure I will enjoy my music that way if data capacity is a concern. Other than that I don't really care about megabytes, I only care to not lose what my ears can hear.
Lossy does not always means worse, it really depends on how you remove data. In a 128kbps file, difference can be heard. Even in 256kbps can be heard. 320, not really.
All of these are lossy, but the real concern is "did I remove something that my ear can hear or it couldn't hear it anyway and no-one bats and eye?".
So, in general we agree but here's why I can't stand some people with huge egos. That's all.
Last edited: