Music Tech Guru Is In. What u wanna know?
Is that Bob Ross' son?
WHOOOO DOOOO YOUUUU
TRUSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
What's the best live setup for electronic dance and future hop jamzzz
>>60531447
Nephew.
>>60531507
well if you do more than just sit up there pretending to mix your prerecorded trax, get a pad controller of some sort, a keyboard controller, and hopefully some cool wacky thing like a kaosspad to add unpredictable live elements to your show.
flac vs mp3
>>60531616
Flac all the way. I mean no audio is missing.
However, perhaps vinyl or tape are even preferable to flac given that they lack a sample rate entirely therefore absolutely nothing is gone
>>60531457
itrustnoone
can i touch your hair?
>>60531934
yes
what DAC to cop
>>60531678
I tried comparing flac and mp3 qualities with my average headphones and i can't differentiate between them
>>60532006
http://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/best-dacs
>>60532013
yeah you might not be able to hear the difference, especially if they're mp3s @320.
>>60531678
>Flac all the way. I mean no audio is missing.
mp3 compression only cuts out the highest frequencies. most of that 'missing audio' is barely audible or inaudible to the human ear, depending on your age.
>perhaps vinyl or tape are even preferable to flac given that they lack a sample rate entirely therefore absolutely nothing is gone
but both have surface noise (eg tape hiss and vinyl crackles & pops). don't get me wrong i collect records and tapes, and i have a full hi-fi setup with an sl-1200 and vintage yamaha amp, preamp, & tape deck, but in terms of pure sound quality, digital is the obvious choice. that's not to say i don't love listening to my records and tapes though.
>>60532013
that's normal. i use an $800+ headphone/amp/dac setup and to my ear there is no difference between flac and mp3 320 cbr, or even between mp3 320 cbr and mp3 v0 for that matter. not trying to be a douchebag and put down people who are all about flac or anything, i'm just saying. i have a fairly discriminating ear in terms of audio equipment, but it terms of file formats I just use v0 or 320, with v0 preferred.
not OP btw
>>60532313
Would you ever use one of these?
http://www.esotericsound.com/NoiseReduction.htm
OR
do you like that surface noise? (i like it)
>>60532452
I don't mind the noise, if I am listening to a record. If I want no noise I'll listen to digital. I would maybe consider it, I'd have to hear what it sounds like, you know? I don't consider myself an audiophile or anything, I just run with whatever sounds good to me.
That being said, I use a cartridge on my turntable that supposedly has minimal record noise (a Nagaoka MP100 if you are curious). This is because I collect a lot of old lounge/exotica/surf/tiki type records that are not always in great shape and have a lot of hiss. My tape deck has a few noise reduction filters and I usually have one of them on.
>>60532718
*Nagaoka MP110
>>60532313
>digital is the obvious best choice
>shiggy diggy
Because converting and compressing the literal analog waveform of sound and then replaying it back would result in better sound quality, right?
>>60532865
Did you read my post? The quality of 'vinyl' is not just a blanket term. Maybe if you have an amazing turntable/catridge, the record is in perfect shape, etc. then you've debunked my arguement...
however, this is usually not the case. the record is old, scratched, warped, etc. you have low to mid level gear. also, look up inner groove distortion.
i've been collecting records for 8 years and I love it but come on dude, don't kid yourself.
>converting and compressing
FLAC isn't compressed though.
Why are you Jeff Simmons?
