4 ms·

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way I could tell the difference on this thing, ditto to most people.

ScottWhigham 14y ago
He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm sorry but I don't really understand the difference between the two. Can you elaborate?
- DanBC 14y ago
  swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense. This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as. Someone downloads that. Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass. So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?
  - ynniv 14y ago
    And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig. Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.

ScottWhigham 14y ago

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm sorry but I don't really understand the difference between the two. Can you elaborate?

DanBC 14y ago
swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense. This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as. Someone downloads that. Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass. So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?
- ynniv 14y ago
  And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig. Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.