Community of Sexsoundlovers

Sody,

I don't insist on high bitrate MP3's. Frankly, 128 kbps is a little overkill for some sounds.

It's just that some recordings, particularly stealth/voyeur recordings are not of excellent quality to begin. Encoding them at a lower bitrate may make existing problems worse...and as I've said, I really dislike aliasing noise. It's funny and sad at the same time. An example of our numbness to aliasing noise: National Public Radio has invested untold millions to upgrade their production facilities...yet many news actualities and field recordings/interviews are so tainted with aliasing noise that they sound like they were recorded through a tin can. We've all gotten accustomed to bad audio lately; whatever happened to the promise of pure audio in the digital age?

However, some audio files just can't be improved by encoding them at higher bitrates. Phone conversations are a prime example; there's almost nothing ImMHO to be gained by encouding a telephone call at above 56 kbps. This is just my opinion; yor's may well differ.

El Ciego wrote:1. I don't insist on high bitrate MP3's. Frankly, 128 kbps is a little overkill for some sounds.

2. It's just that some recordings, particularly stealth/voyeur recordings
are not of excellent quality to begin. Encoding them at a lower bitrate
may make existing problems worse...

1. I still think 64 kbp/s sucks. Musik lovers wants 192 kbp/s or more, so
why can't we have 128 kbp/s on all files? At least for stereo recordings.
And 32 kbp/s should be prohibited.

2. I'm not professional but I'm afraid it does and maybe we don't hear
the same because of different equipments, software and different ears.
I don't agree with yeppie when it's about 64 kbp/s because I've heard
many "tin cans" so far. I'm sure he knows better how to manage the
files but I have nothing to compare to.

So all who still have uncut originals, please send them to me
so that I can compare and try to improve the sounds myself.

Here is my 2 cents -

For anyone that has contributed self-made recordings (not from a video they bought or anything like that).... most economically-priced MP3 player/recorders are limited to at the very most 64 kbs.
All the recorders I own are:
Bit Rate: 32 kbps
Sample Size: 4-bit
Sample Rate: 8 Khz.

Sure, we all would ideally like the highest quality recording possible.... but if you can clearly hear the action and there is little distortion or background noise... the matter of Kbs seems pretty much irrelevant.

Content is much more valued than quality of the recording to me. I would take a barely understandable recording of my ideal sound over the highest quality 'junk' recording any day.

If you want a 'perfect' recording.... I suggest you pic up a mic and hit the streets... or just sit at your computer and enjoy the contributions that others have made.... either way .. I dont give a damn what you think you are entitled to (just teasing there with the "Few Good Men" analogy).

Seriously though.... I am not sure if everyone realizes the time/effort/risk involved in obtaining recordings from either unknowing partners or neighbors/hotels. What these people do is no easy task and the sounds that have been posted here by them are greatly appreciated by me for one... regardless of quality. One example I will use is Eighthman's material. While the quality may not be 'top-notch'... the CONTENT in those recordings are priceless. No amount of Kbs can replace the authenticism of true amatures in the throes of passion... and for those people that cannot appreciate that sometimes to get a recording, we have to deal with certain environment/stealth/location/equipment issues.... maybe this 'audiovoyeurism 'fetish' is not for you. If all you desire is ultra high quality audio... go buy some porn DVDs.

Okay.. off my soapbox now..

mjj9994
I didn't know there was recorders with 32 kbps only. So I thought
you "downgraded" your files and I was hoping there was better since
32 kbps cannot be improved. Maybe there's better recorders today
that isn't very expensive? However, no porn DVD's contains such
sounds and I'm still grateful because you are sharing your files

To others who use to downgrade their files before uploading: please
send me the original so I can compare and try to improve it myself.

RP wrote:mjj9994
I didn't know there was recorders with 32 kbps only.

That is why I made my comments.....

I don't think everyone that jumped on the 'high quality bandwagon' is aware of the various types of MP3 players and price/size related to quality of the recordings.

Please give a little credit to the posters... we try to post the best qualtiy recordings with the equipment we have at our disposal.

[quote="mjj9994"][quote="RP"]mjj9994
I didn't know there was recorders with 32 kbps only. [/quote]

That is why I made my comments.....

I don't think everyone that jumped on the 'high quality bandwagon' is aware of the various types of MP3 players and price/size related to quality of the recordings.

Please give a little credit to the posters... we try to post the best qualtiy recordings with the equipment we have at our disposal.[/quote]

Mark, for one thing I am very grateful for the sounds, and having done some stealth recording, I'm aware of the limitations of many cheap, small recording devices. My comments were not (repeat NOT) intended to put down the substance of the material, only to suggest that if possible and if bandwidth is the only deciding factor, to make the recordings at as high a bitrate/resolution/sampling rate as possible.

Okay, I've said it before, but I'll talk about my fairly cheap setup:

Used Sony MZ-R50 bought on eBay for U.S. $50.00
Core Sound binaural mics - $60.00
Blank minidisc - About $1.50

The resulting sound is very close to CD quality. I can then encode the sound to MP3 using the best compromise between file size and quality. U.S. FM radio broadcasts are very close in quality to 96 kbps, so I'll go the next step up to 128. This is presuming of course a 16 bit resolution and 44.1 kHz sampling rate.

Go to the Archives - Various A-Z section and find "Dinner Interrupted," which is a file I posted to A.B.S.E. a few years ago. The recording was made with the above-described gear and is of fairly high audio quality.

As far as me not being aware of the risks, etc. you're wrong. I am very aware, having been implicated (although not arrested) in an audio voyeur case where I helped pull the recordings. I've got my credentials, friend.

I'm just saying that:

1. If the recording is good, don't f*ck it up by encoding it at too low a bitrate.

2. If the recording is of poor quality, don't make it worse by using crap encoding, just for the sake of saving bandwidth. If Yeppie needs cash to pay for bandwidth, let's all contribute, but let's not f*ck ourselves by deliberately producing poor MP3's.

Amen.

(The above opinion is mine and was written under the influence of coffee. I will probably deny having written it at a later date. Your mileage may vary. Taxes not included. Buyer assumes all responsibility).

All good points El Ciego and RP.

Didn't mean to 'rock the boat' and come off so nasty... guess i just had a pinched nerve or something (can i attibute it to jet lag since I just got back from my trip?).

I understand everyone's points. Many of the files in the archives are quite a few years old... and probably encoded with 1st generation software and from analog tape recorders.. which may explain their quality. In the past year or so... I have noticed the recording quality has improved (but the number of contributors or sounds seems to have declined a bit). Hopefully the community will continue to expand and when that happens I am sure the quality of posts will increase as technology catches up to the posters.

[quote="mjj9994"]All good points El Ciego and RP.

Didn't mean to 'rock the boat' and come off so nasty... guess i just had a pinched nerve or something (can i attibute it to jet lag since I just got back from my trip?).

I understand everyone's points. Many of the files in the archives are quite a few years old... and probably encoded with 1st generation software and from analog tape recorders.. which may explain their quality. In the past year or so... I have noticed the recording quality has improved (but the number of contributors or sounds seems to have declined a bit). Hopefully the community will continue to expand and when that happens I am sure the quality of posts will increase as technology catches up to the posters.[/quote]

Mark, excellent points again. Another reason for the lack of new material may be the recently-enacted laws against electronic eavesdropping, which have very harsh penalties if the eavesdropper is convicted (unless you're a government agent, of course...then you don't even need a court order to listen)!

Your mention of tape recorders makes me think. A decent quality tape recording (made on a portable Nagra deck, for example) and then properly encoded will yield better results than a junk MP3 recorder and low-fi encoding. Maybe I'll go back to my cassette recorders. Or not.

I'm still trying to find audio software that I can use, a shotgun microphone I can afford, a parabolic microphone I can afford, a through-the-wall spike microphone I can afford, a recorder usable by the blind...and of course, locations where people are having sex.

yea...

mjj9994, my english could have been better but I hope you understand
that I wasn't thinking about you personally. It's mostley about how to
manage the files -after the recording- and before uploading the files.
Still it was good know your situation and learn some more. Yes, I'm just
a listener while you and others are the workers who takes riscs and are
spending a lot of money on the stuff you need. I appreciate and I respect
your work even when the quality is poor because I'm sure you are doing
your best. One reason why I'm talking much about the quality is because
I know how good it can be and I thought (and was hoping) that many of
you used to lower the bitrate before uploading. Then I'm interested in to
have the original! Actually I'm more interested in bedroom-recordings but
hotel/neighbor-recordings are welcome too - because it's so exciting!

Also I've discovered that some of the best and newest files in the archive
is "downgraded". I know yeppie have to manage the files to save space
and there's probably no change in quality. But I'm still not so sure about
that and I think the files should'nt be changed at all. Especially not the
very best files there is. I'm thinking about the future and I don't want to
argue or make it hard for anyone. I thought maybe we could chat about
everything in MSN Messenger where we can send files direct and maybe
help each other to improve the sounds if possible. And later we could
upload the result and talk about it in the forum. Just some thoughs...

Reflection...
I don't know much about the sequrity however and how files and
messages are exposed in MSN. That's another thing to think about.

I´m reading the bitrate discussion but am holding back my comments because i prefer to see the un-influenced members´ thoughts towards this.
just two reactions:

Also I've discovered that some of the best and newest files in the archive is "downgraded". I know yeppie have to manage the files to save space and there's probably no change in quality.

after recoding files (from 128 to 64 kbp/s for example), i listen to both of the sounds and compare the uploaded to the converted. only if there is no quality downgrade that i can hear, the 64 kbp/s version makes it´s way to the archives.
For those to whom bitrates are too important to be satisfied with 64 kbp/s i have just adjusted the total upload quota from 120mb to 150mb.

finally, a hint for you debaters: you might want to think about setting up a poll on preferred bitrates.

cu
yeppie

un-influenced - Do you mean n00bs? mmm...
But we have a professional hearing

Upload quota from 120mb to 150mb sounds good.

Music enthusiasts wants 192 kbps or more (stereo). That's what I've
heard and seen on MP3 lists all over the world and I thought it would
be the same here. The problem with to low bitrates might be when we
want to convert the files, edit and improve the sound. It's one of my
biggest interests when it's about sexsounds. But since I've always
been using the highest quality I don't know anything else. That's why
I'm so concerned about this. I don't know if we will lose any quality
because there's no time to check it out right now. I just wanted to
say something before it's too late. Well, I never thought there
would be a reason to bring it up.

RP wrote:un-influenced - Do you mean n00bs?

un-influenced -> i don´t want to influence the discussion too much to see what members feel about bitrates, that´s all.

RP wrote:Music enthusiasts wants 192 kbps or more (stereo).

exactly! music enthusiasts listen to sounds produced in hi-tech studios. we listen to sounds "produced" in bedrooms, often through walls.

does anybody find the hidden difference? this is not the same!
this site is for audio voyeurs, not for music enthusiasts.
hi-tech studios are used to create a certain clean atmosphere, sexsounds get their atmosphere only from sounding natural.

i now turn back to no-influence mode again.

It's only about to keep the original sound and try to make it better.
Not making it hi-tech. I have no proof but it's true that lower bitrates
destroys the sound and then you cannot improve it at all.

Hey! Wrong post sorry

Ok, this is my 1st contributory post here on the site, and I certainly do not want to step on any toes. I just want to offer any help I can.

First off, El Ciego's rig is a very good portable way to do this. Sony's Variable Bit Rate technology used in it's mini-disk players is a good way to encode (ie: compress data) into reasonable sounding smaller files. Honestly, I'm not even sure if Sony still makes mini-disk players, but if they do this would be a good set-up if you need a portable or reasonably inexpensive rig. I am not certain why you are using the binaural mics El Ciego, but it may work well with the way you have things set up.

And please everyone, do not speak of any of this compressed audio in terms of "High Quality". It makes me shudder and shake. RP mentioned that audiophiles like a bit rate of 192, and I realize that to many people, that is high or at least 'good' quality audio, but nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that most people have never in their lives in heard what real high quality recording can sound like. To me that's a shame, but it is the way it is because most people will choose small size, convenience and low cost over quality audio.

If you are in a situation that allows you to record directly to your computer, you will get far better results than you are able to achieve with any portable gear, unless you happen to have some very expensive pro gear at your disposal.
There are several good software programs out there for this ranging from $100 to many thousands, but even the $100 programs are very good and will allow you all sorts of editing and sound enhancing capabilities, including Noise Reduction.

Mics and mic placement are probably the most important single factor in getting a great recording. I will be happy to help anyone here in understanding some of this and what might yield the most optimal results in a given environment and situation or in any way I am capable of. Of course, if any of you have a sexy Hotwife you want recorded, I'm not THAT expensive.

Peace,
HammerHeart