jimswinder Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 k6ccc wrote: And yes, proper usage of the language being spoken or written is important. hmmm...my lights don't seem to care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 jimswinder wrote:k6ccc wrote: And yes, proper usage of the language being spoken or written is important. hmmm...my lights don't seem to care... They would if you decide to use Animated Lighting language in an LOR network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trafficman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well I glad they don't.. My rearend would be in trouble for sure. Y'all come you hear !! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightzilla Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 wbottomley wrote: jimswinder wrote:k6ccc wrote: And yes, proper usage of the language being spoken or written is important. hmmm...my lights don't seem to care... They would if you decide to use Animated Lighting language in an LOR network. I still have my Animated Lighting Manual. Perhaps I should dig it out & quote out of it on this forum. If Drew would have showed up on the Lor forum 1st before I sold my AL equipment I would have kept my AL controllers & I would of had Drew convert them to the Lor protocol.Speaking of "They would if you decide to use Animated Lighting language in an LOR network."..... I had a phone cable plugged in to 1 of my controllers like the instructions said to do it & well it spoke a language I wish was true......it said it found 49 controllers & some ccr ....but I only had 15 controllers.When I removed it & put cat5 cable back in I had 15 controllers like there should be....to bad because I was hoping I found a way to reproduce controllers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Young Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 k6ccc wrote: Orville wrote:One of the reasons I quit using 128kbps George is they kept coming out sounding scratchy and static-like in places in the song.No matter how many times I would try and rip the CD or a specific song on a CD, and no matter what software I used (and I use some expensive music editing software) and always was getting the same results.I agree with you there. I have spent time as a broadcast engineer, so sound quality is important to me. I find that 128Kb/s is generally not acceptable quality to me. Personally I rip CDs at no less than 192Kb/s and ones that I really want to sound good (that generally means classical stuff) at 256Kb/s. I was recently surprised to find that the first MP3s I ever downloaded from Amazon (I normally just buy the CD) were running at 256Kb/s.Lower data rates may be fine when played back into teeny tiny earbuds in a noisy environment, but on a quality sound system, it does not cut it. And yes, I realize that the earbuds comprise a large percentage of the usage (including by me when commuting via public transit).And yes, proper usage of the language being spoken or written is important. As a former broadcast engineer myself, and musician, I am a bug for audio quality as well.I am surprised you don't shoot for 320Kb/s. It sounds considerably better than 192, and even a little better than 256. Of course even better would be to use wavs, which sound significantly better than any of the mp3s...Using the inexpensive FM transmitters most use, coupled with the fact that many people rely on mp3s/iTunes as their primary music source, I sincerely doubt however that the public could discern differences between the various rates..As to wavs, even those the purists would argue do not come close to vinyl, but we won't go there! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Greg I use 320kbps to burn Audio CD's. However anything above 192kbps is not well liked by the DC-MP3 Showtime Director I use to run my show. I've also have the LOR SE Software not like some 256k or 320k MP3 files and would play them erratically, even if they were set at a CBR over the VBR, which really causes issues in both the LOR SE software and the DC-MP3 Showtime Director hardware.That's why with LOR I don't use anything higher than 192kbps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Young Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Understood Orville. I play it safe and use 128Kb/s for the commercial show I do at the Botanical gardens of Erie county, as I am using a mp3 director and want to avoid any issues (since it is a drive for me).I was responding more to K6CCC and wondering why he decided on 256 instead of 320, or even better wavs.I can hear a significant difference between 320 and wavs. If using a pc, and you wanted the very best quality, wavs would certainly be the way to go.For a mp3 director however, 128/192 makes much more sense.Gerg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Greg, I didn't think you were referring to my post.But I just wanted to clear that up for anyone coming into this the problems they might encounter and what they can look for and fix before thinking their LOR software or their MP3 Director units aren't functioning correctly.I had to learn it by trial and error myself, so just trying to save some folks the issues I went through that just about drove me crazy trying to figure out what the problem was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts