Discussion in 'Audio, Video & Home Theater' started by OOZMAN, Dec 28, 2011.
Pfft. This is the only way to listen to music.
here here to the ranting
i really hate what mp3 does to hi hats, i do some music myself and when i render my track to a 128k mp3 it really pisses me of to hear that my lush hi hat lines sound like crap.
but, what i find the worst is today's overcompressed mastering made to sound good on a fucking cellphone - ppl no longer give a crap whether they're listening their tunes on a hifi stereo or some crappy 10$ pc speakers. it's sad - when i mention this to someone their reaction is wtf, dude, whatever. :shadedshu
Yes, because heaven forbid people just relax and listen to music instead of nitpicking every missing decibel/wavelength/wtfever.
MP3s, mobile - smartphones, tablets, Itunes it's all consumerism that's killing quality music, movies and... games. In my young days I could touch the music, hold it in my hands - talking about vinyl, now it's nothing... 0 and 1, compressed to fit in your pocket.
I agree, though I have a more modern interpetation of the ol' phonograph.
Many people assume that just because an audio format like WAV is uncompressed it will always sound better than compressed audio but this isnt exactely true. Its all about the quality of the recording or production in the first place and the quality of the speakers its being played back through.
I worked in the music industry for many years, have produced music and worked for record labels and download stores (wont be name dropping here) I have even performed live compressed audio files for many years at events and have no personal issue with them. The louder the rigs played on the less it appeared to matter as human ears were doing natural compression on the music due to the massive decibel levels the speakers were belting out
Sure, if you have a fantastic high-end sound system with speakers that can output a very wide dynamic range, you will probably be able to tell a good compressed audio track from an uncompressed lossless one if you listen hard enough. In most cases if the compression and quality of the original recording or source material is good, its not the huge perceivable difference that some people would lead you to believe and MP3 is a respectable music format especially due to its size.
Another major con is companys like iTunes and other music download stores charging more for WAV, FLAC and even 24bit digital files where the original source material or recordings used to create the files was some crap quality 16bit compressed format from the digital distribution service and not an actual studio master file. You can take an MP3 and render it to a 24bit lossless format if you so choose, its not going to make it sound any better as it is what it originally was to begin with
that ain't music, it's noise i can't listen to for more than an hour. music has something called dynamic range, it doesn't have to be up to 11 all the time and you are one of the ppl i was talking about.
You guys are weird. I don't have any hearing problems, but I can't tell the difference between CD quality and 128k mp3. I even bought good speakers and it still sounds the same to me (of course, everything sounds more rich in general, but the difference is still not there).
You don't like my laid back attitude on music, just like I don't like your laid back attitude on basic spelling and grammar. I guess the world will keep spinning.
Compression doesn't matter so long as it is lossless. Compression done right only effects the file size and nothing else. Lossy encoders, on the other hand, is what I have problems with. They describe the original sound without being the original sound.
FLAC is basically RIFF WAVE with compression. My problem with FLAC isn't the quality of the audio but the fact a lot of major software players don't support it and most hardware players don't support it. We need an industry takeover of high quality audio like MP3 did to disks.
I can hear the difference even if I don't know the bit rate before hand
When my friends come round and play music on my speakers I can tell straight away if it's a 128, to put it simply it sounds flatter, can hear digital noise and the bass lacks the same punch that my lossless files have.
I tend to find classical music takes the biggest hit from a low bit rate though.
Higher the bit rate the easier it is to close your eyes and distinguish every separate instrument.
Just buy a Cowon player, they play everything.
With a higher quality audio equipment the difference between lossy compressed tracks and uncompressed tracks is night and day.
I once purchased a single track on Itunes store because I didn't want to purchase the whole physical CD and thought there was something wrong with my equipment, because the sound was lacking depth and definition so I checked and everything was fine, when I finally checked the track I saw 128 kbps AAC and got my explanation.
I NEVER purchased anything else from that shitty, if you let me use that term, site because let's face it, only passers by of music listen to such LAME (pun intended) compression.
Hell, Itunes has a setting that if it is enabled will compress ALL of your MUSIC in your library to 128 kbps AAC and this is to evaluate my thinking that the mass doesn't even pay attention to what they listen.
I'll continue to purchase CDs, not matter what, Itunes store is a dead site for me.
I tested myself today using a cd, and 320k mp3s ripped from it, and i can't tell the difference. maybe it wasn't loud enough but from what i understand the majority of people can't tell the difference either. that doesn't seem too optimistic in terms of a standard lossless codec and more hardware to support it any time soon imo.
i'd use flac to backup my cds, and in turn stream it from my server - but for anything not at home mp3 is more than good enough.
i do honestly wonder how many of you have done a 320kbps cbr mp3 vs flac at normal listening volume on your normal equipment, blind test? i just really think the circumstances where the differences are readily apparent are actually pretty small, and am surprised to see so many making it sound so common and second nature. from what i have read it's rare for the human ear to be able to hear those ranges anyway?
however, the level of snobbishness is quite underwhelming thus far. this thread needs some vinyl/SACD/tube amp snobbery, too.
but seriously, i try to refuse buying lossy music. there's a couple tracks i have lossy, but mainly because i can't find it anywhere else (i think a Sleepthief a capella, a few other related releases that don't have a physical/lossless release, and a couple singles from Amazon that have a pretty high playcount on my last.fm).
in one respect, it's a good thing Beatport is the only store offering lossless. the moment Amazon's music store (or anyone else) starts offering lossless, i'm sure hundreds, if not thousands of dollars will be spent by me... :I
Whats this thread about?
I've bought many electronica/trance tracks from them and while the WAVs sound excellent, I really hate the £1 markup they add to every single track. That means a 79p track ends up costing me £1.79 and there's no reduction for multiple tracks!
I refuse to buy lossy MP3's and I'm not paying such ridiculous prices for my music, which means that my purchases are quite infrequent. Yes, due to their greed, they're making much less money out of me than they would have otherwise.
May I ask you which source, amplifier and headphones/monitor have you used to listen the tracks?
A lot of music simply hasn't been recorded well and sounds like crap regardless of how it was ripped. I don't have golden ears but generally I feel I can tell the difference between a 128kbps rip and a lossless one. Is MP3 quality that bad though? It's convenient and easy; the vast majority of consumers don't care about the difference. I cringed when I heard that my brother-in-law ripped all of his CDs in 128kbps MP3s and threw out the CD collection afterward. While it kills me a little bit inside, he has no issues with it and likes having his collection consolidated.
I'll try out a variety of formats and bitrates when I get to re-audition a set of STAX SR-009s next week. I suspect the differences to be barely noticeable once I hit around 320kbps, which is what the majority of my collection has been ripped in.
Do you know what compression is? Again - not trying to be offensive, serious question.
I know how big a good quality file is too by the way, one of our 2 min songs is 500MB.
What? When I said compression I meant compression during the mastering stage of the recording... I don't think we're talking about the same type of compression.
I have to agree here Take me I'm a huge RUSH fan and when my album list hits Vapor Trails i have to skip it,The worst sounding album .Not Them (They have a dubbed one in the new box set in 5.1)VT for short ....has this underline hum to hit if you listen to it with headphones or real loud.It is the feedback dub track on the album and its from Geds bass amp.Gonna try finding the new 5.1 redubed in flac.
+1 to RUSH. I put on my CD player the Chronicles compilation listening through my Senn cans so no crappy MP3s...
well there is an obvious difference between 128 and 320/flac in most cases. Where i find it much less obvious is 320 cbr vs flac.
Interesting thread. But sadly, my ear is not good as three years ago. Lot of electronic music with maximum volume killed my hearing a little.
I used to be an audiophile then I took a bassline to the ear!
Separate names with a comma.