It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)to music experts here i have a question(5 posts)(5 posts)
(5 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 23, 2012
I noticed when I was listing to one song it sounds different then the other time I lisented to the song


to put it simply here is an example:

The Song killing in the name of I want you to hear the 2 vids you will hear that they so sound different

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjDPWP5GKQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxk3c_SbWMg

and its not just killing in the name of I heard the same thing from other songs too
Posted August 23, 2012
Aren't they just reprises from different albums ?

Soundhound gives

killing in the name...
2007
rage against the machine
Album : crusty daemons

for the first one and

killing in the name...
1992
rage against the machine
Album : rage against the machine (self-titled debut album)

for the second one
Post edited August 23, 2012 by Telika
Posted August 23, 2012
like Telika said.. to me it just sounds like a re-recording or a remaster..
Posted August 23, 2012
No kidding, eh?

Well, it usually goes this way.

A person thinks he's so cool so he downloads "high quality" 320 kbps MP3 track... which is... drum roll... compressed = lower quality then it should be... OR, he may download some lower quality crap like a 192 or 168 kbps MP3.

Then he puts that track into a video... and the track together with the video is... drum roll... compressed by the application that he uses to create the video (unless the application is smart enough to know that it should not compress already compressed audio tracks).

Then he uploads it to YouTube. Google's backbone may re-encode the video into WebM... which uses Vorbis for audio encoding... which may result in a further... drum roll... compression.

So in the end, the audio track may go through several compression processes.

TL;DR

The tracks are heavily compressed, that's why some sound better, and some sound like shit.
Posted August 23, 2012
avatar
Elenarie: No kidding, eh?

Well, it usually goes this way.

A person thinks he's so cool so he downloads "high quality" 320 kbps MP3 track... which is... drum roll... compressed = lower quality then it should be... OR, he may download some lower quality crap like a 192 or 168 kbps MP3.

Then he puts that track into a video... and the track together with the video is... drum roll... compressed by the application that he uses to create the video (unless the application is smart enough to know that it should not compress already compressed audio tracks).

Then he uploads it to YouTube. Google's backbone may re-encode the video into WebM... which uses Vorbis for audio encoding... which may result in a further... drum roll... compression.

So in the end, the audio track may go through several compression processes.

TL;DR

The tracks are heavily compressed, that's why some sound better, and some sound like shit.
I see I heared the same thing from the music Night on Bald Mountain and the Casino Royale theme song
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)to music experts here i have a question(5 posts)(5 posts)
(5 posts)