Audiophiles Run And Hide: Growing Number Of Young People Prefer The Sound Of MP3s
from the here-come-the-snobs dept
Every so often we have a story about how audiophiles freak out about how awful MP3s sound, and how they're "ruining music." We tend to joke about those stories, and then the audiophiles come out in the comments and scream about how we're totally clueless and if we only spent six figures on our own stereo system, we'd feel the same way. So, I'm sure they're going to be upset to hear that a growing number of young folks actually prefer the sound of MP3s to other, much higher "quality" systems. The theory is that they're so used to hearing the sound associated with MP3s, they are more comfortable with it and prefer it. In fact, the article notes, some believe the same is true of those who believe that vinyl's sound quality is so much greater than other formats: much of it is actually because they're so used to the sound quality associated with vinyl.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's almost like quality is....subjective!
*Shock, gasp!*
END SARCASM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here, let me show you why.
In order to know what the sound quality is like you have to be able to measure it being played over your speakers, right?
So once it hits the speakers, how can you tell if there is any distortion? You use a microphone that's been calibrated, right?
So how do you calibrate the mic? With calibrated speakers. And how do you calibrate the speakers? With a calibrated mic. Do I need to explain why the deep dark secret that high-end stereo manufacturers don't want you to think about this too much?
Well, for those uninitiated I'll let you know. It's impossible to know which has the distortion, the speakers or the mic sooo, they took that entirely out of the equation and let a human say "this is 100% audio quality" with a certain set of speakers and then certified a mic on that subjective experience. There IS NO OTHER WAY. It's the chicken and the egg syndrome and there's nothing they can ever do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are correct, I just didn't say it the way you expected to read it at first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gee, you start off with an appeal to authority. What a way to win an argument.
"this discussion of sound quality is not subjective"
Nope, it is.
"The problem the audiophiles have with MP3s is that the compression is lossy. Some of the qualities and properties of the sound are lost when it's compressed to the format, so it comes out sounding different on the other side."
Back in the early 60s guitarists would overdrive their amps causing massive amounts of clipping and distortion. And if that wasn't enough, they'd cut their speakers to add even more distortion. Are you saying that the music of the Who, the Kinks, and Blue Cheer (to name a few) would be of a higher quality without all of that lost information due to clipping and without all of the distortion?
"But you can adjust to the taste of diet, and some people start to like it. It's the same thing here, just with sound."
And thanks for proving my point. A person who thinks diet soda tastes better is not wrong. His beliefs are subjectively correct in the same way that someone raised on MP3s can think a lossy compression format makes the music sound better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here you are comparing two equals.
Not an original to a lesser imitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If diet soda is equal to regular soda, despite entirely different ingredients, exactly how is the same song in two different formats not also equal.
I'll just add that I certainly do not think diet soda is equal to regular soda. Nor do I think to different formats of the same song are equal. In fact I think the entire notion of two different things being considered equal is asinine, I'm just awaiting your explanation.
"Not an original to a lesser imitation."
Once again you're somehow equating a quantity (lesser) with quality. Is a louder song always better than a quieter song? I certainly do not think so. However, under your logic, the quieter song would always be of "lessor" quality, because it has lessor volume, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not about two different formats.
It is about the difference between analog and digital.
It is like putting square wheels on your car and then comparing them.
"However, under your logic, the quieter song would always be of "lessor" quality, because it has lessor volume, right?"
Wrong. Read my comment over and over until you get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're confusing "musical quality" with reproductive "sound quality". They're not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me repeat myself. Back in the early 60s guitarists would overdrive their amps causing massive amounts of clipping and distortion. And if that wasn't enough, they'd cut their speakers to add even more distortion. The original sound of their guitars would be radically changed. Are you saying that the music of the Who, the Kinks, and Blue Cheer (to name a few) would be of a higher quality without all of that lost information due to clipping and without all of the distortion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an example, the entire Lo-Fi genre of music is predicated on a lower quantity of criteria versus regular recorded music, e.g., the inclusion of distortion, hum, or background noise, or limited frequency response. But yet, people find the resulting music to be of a higher quality when compared to how music is typically produced.
Let's face it, does anyone seriously think that the Velvet Underground's first LP would be a higher quality if it had been produced by George Martin or all digitally?
The same is true of us old fogies complaining about the so called loudness war. I.e., the production and mastering technique that compresses the sound of music to such an extent that very little dynamic range exists. What most people don't get about this production/mastering technique is that some people like it and find it a higher quality.
Us old fogies don't get it because we grew up where most artists wanted a lot of dynamic range. Since we're used to it, we find a limited dynamic range to sound bad. But we're not objectively right about it. Anymore than someone who claims that all MP3s sound bad.
Heck, let's face it. Both SACD and DVD-Audio utterly failed in the market place. Increased bit rates and extra audio channels does not lead to a better quality of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The VU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The VU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The VU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The VU
In more recent times: Beck's "Ramshackle"
When the singer's sings from experience, with deep emotion, the listener feels it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have proof above from ehrichweiss, who claims to be an audio engineer and argues that because lossy music is lower quantity of bits, i.e., portions of the music are lost due to the compression, that it follows that the sound of the music is of lower quality.
And I've never met an Audiophile who didn't attempt to use objective facts to prove subjective quality. If they exist, I've not met him or her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If all you're saying is that it all boils down to the listener because there's no way to objectively determine if a speaker or microphone are perfect, then yes, I said that.
Amplifiers can be as perfect as we can make them and we can measure with certainty how the input compares to the output but we have to listen to what comes out of the amps and that's where the objectivity ceases for the above reasons.
OH, and I'm not really an audio engineer, though I've ran lights and sound for my share of bands, but rather an electrical engineer...or at least that's how I started out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving my point. Tastes and and judgments of quality are purely subjective. I might love the VU, you might hate them. We're both right and neither of us are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
Maybe if you used an equalizer, you could make the bass sound better. Hooray Loudness curve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
Schools use the same kinda BS. So I stopped going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 Sound "quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mp3's used in studio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mp3's used in studio
As for people caring for flac or any other "lossless" format, I suppose that adaption by the popular portable music player would help break the chicken&egg problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting Flac?
There's always FLAC if you want to store CD-quality sound with the smallest file size. Most people don't care enough though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the music!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why MP3'S are Dominant !
1, They are small enough in size that you can fit a lot of them into your Portable Music player of Choice, and lets face it is kids that are pushing the use of MP3's and they are a convenient way of listening and sharing music.
2, MP3 is supported by virtually any media player / Device
Eventually they will figure out how to keep the compression without losing quality and by that i mean that the compression will be less lossy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why MP3'S are Dominant !
You really have no knowledge about this topic do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most devices do well with the MP3 format.
That being said, I believe the quality of the MP3 format is a component of the device playing it. A cheap MP3 player can make the music sound "tinny" vs. placing the same song in a high-end system, which uses plenty of filters and has an adjustable equalizer (as well as some MP3 players).
Sound quality is relative. I may enjoy music with increased bass while others may not. We adjust our equalizers to fit our needs, not what these audiophiles think we need.
These idiots just can't seem to realize if they don't like the MP3 format, quit buying the damn thing. Sheesh.
With that, time to listen to the soundtrack from "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya". Yes, it's in Japanese. I wonder what these audiophiles will say about this, given Japanese women tend to sing with higher vocal ranges? As if I care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most devices do well with the MP3 format.
Objection: Any media player that's in the "off" position greatly improves the quality of a Britney Spears track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most devices do well with the MP3 format.
Objection: Any media player that's in the "off" position greatly improves the quality of a Britney Spears track.
Counterpoint, Britaney Spears videos are quite tolerable when muted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally I don't care much what I listen to as far as quality. But there can/should be no doubt that when converting analog to digital you sacrifice a quality potential.
Most choose MP3 because they place value on quantity over quality.
Most do this in all aspects of life. Walmart is making a fortune on this, so is McDonalds etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3's are hurting children across the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3's are hurting children across the world...
Yes, but that damn record player was heavy and I was limited by the length of the extension cord to play it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3's are hurting children across the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MP3's are hurting children across the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3's are hurting children across the world...
Immigrating from Europe to the states I find that the food culture here is terrible. I find this to be common knowledge, but what really drives home the point is seeing the 65+ age group at Burger King.
Prior to coming here I had never seen anyone older than 45 in a fast food chain.
America is in a fast lane to loss of quality and the current everyday newspaper shows you the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly how old are you? I would put myself just short of middle age, but how young do you have to be to not know that 33rpm ALBUMS were exactly that, full albums with *WOW* multiple tracks on each side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Compare it to your old style film camera vs. digital camera.
See all those Mega Pixel numbers. It is the attempt to get closer to real like what the potential of film cameras could reach.
Analog has capacity for higher quality because you don't reduce a smooth curve to jagged blocks of 1's and 0's
Analog would be a smooth curve utilizing numbers from 0 to infinity.
Digital is a curve utilizing number from 0 to 1. Imagine the great curve it makes.
Now you can definitely add enough 1's and 0's into the equation to reduce the loss. But you will only be working towards reducing loss as you get closer to an imitation of infinity. You can never reach it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also about the source
Step it up just a little with a good pair of full size headphones and a higher quality CD player or a dedicated 2CH audio system, and you will start to realize there is a slight difference between a compressed and Lossless source.
Training to hear the difference is needed to understand why a MP3 has X type of sound and why Lossless has Y type of sound; I will admit some music really has no difference encoded into a compressed source, really coming down to the music you listen to.
Now I will also go off on a tanget and complain about the engineering of almost all modern music over the last 15 or so years. Over compressed dynamics, terrible stereo tracking and completely over peak sound levels. You wonder why people don't hear a difference or care when the Loseless source sounds like garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound Quality
But sound quality of the recording is the factor, or how it is produced.
Years ago April Wine would 'produce' their sound so it would sound good on cheap record players, as that is what their fans had.
And to add the 'Best' sound record of my gen was Pink Floyds, Dark Side of the Moon. I will let you in on something, the MASTER for that album is second generation. They re-recorded the master to use a new technology, so there was some sound loss alreadt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To say it sounds better is going a bit too far though... and I think that must have to stem from MP3s being so popular. Of course a kid today will say an MP3 sounds better than Grandpa Joe's old LP... and a kid several years down the line will be saying the same thing about their current format.
On a personal note though, it really is true what some audiophiles say.. you THINK MP3s sound great until you're introduced to some cutting-edge sound technology. At that point, your mind is blown by how much of a difference there is. If you deny that, there must be something wrong with your hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of the audiophile crowd seems to think quality is important. MP3 usage indicates many people don't care.
Personally, I've always felt that if you are that into music, you should be creating your own. If you spend thousands on a stereo and you can't even play one instrument, you are the Britney Spears of music fans. It just lacks authenticity.
It reminds me of a friend who got an HDTV, and then quit enjoying TV because he was too busy enjoying the enjoyment of TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
audiophile equipment
...Of course if you're like half of the people I know and don't give half a $hit about your music and just listen to whatever is new on the alternative station because you're so goddamn hip then you probably don't need to bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: audiophile equipment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basically
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: basically
Is that like "A more perfect union"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil plot...
Step one: Get everyone to accept crappy MP3's.
Step two: Embed subliminal messages.
Step three: Herd the humans like cattle to the ships.
Step four: Grind them up into pudding.
Step five: eat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil plot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evil plot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA is eating the pudding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vinyl will never die
"EMP from the mother and son, tore the digital down. Dawned at the age of the innocent ones, the indigo children come." -Puscifer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vinyl will never die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of Quality
The higher the quality of the recording, the more it sounds like the original song. Therefore, Lo-Fi music, those who use distortion, etc. are NOT counted out. That distortion, etc, is still there, it just sounds a lot closer to the original distortion. When it gets compressed, that distortion will get distorted as well.
The quality of recording is NOT subjective. The amount of difference it makes IS subjective. THAT you can argue over. Is the difference in quality worth thousands of dollars? Now that is definitely up for argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For many people (not just the "young folks"), they listen to moderate bit-rate music (often mixed with a lot of dynamic range compression) through cheap earbuds. Hearing the same music uncompressed through a good quality system will sound wrong. Based upon the article, I assume they were listening to unfamiliar music, but I wonder how much of it was due to factors besides the format (earbuds vs. a high fidelity system, for example).
Also, there is one factor that is difficult to control in a test like this. Louder music is perceived as being higher quality than softer music. If, at any point--from encoding to decoding--the music is compressed (in the dynamic range sense, not in the number of bits) or the apparent volume of the mp3 is increased it will sound "better". Gain normalization is one possible area that this can happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could even put human pudding in them.
versatility ftw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The purpose of music
I'm not listening to Vivaldi while smoking my pipe and eating caviar. You want to listen to MP3's while your lifting weights, driving, jogging, walking, etc. All of those things have sounds of their own which interrupt the finer points you're discussing.
I have a $5000 stereo at home which I'd rather have lossless on, but the other 20 things I do in a day when I need an MP3 instead don't really make it matter that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The purpose of music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The purpose of music
But the majority of the reason why mp3's became so popular is because of its small file size, allowing it to be easily transfered over the internet, and because its supported by nearly every portable music player.
People don't just listen to music at home. The majority listen to it on the go, in the car, exercising, commuting on the bus, at work... the list goes on. And lossless formats just cannot WORK for these uses. MP3's work the best, so they become the most popular.
If anything is to blame, it's not the people, it's the technology. Technology just hasn't reached the point where it can deliver lossless quality music in the way people want to use it, at a price we can ALL afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gee - I must be a young person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I must be a young person
On another note, hax has a point on the purpose of music. I am more selective because usually when I really listen to music, its at home, in a quite setting, with my home stereo and vinyl, and some of god's grass to compliment the aural experience even further...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Specifically, I have an old At The Drive-In CD with terrible sounding quality, which would continue to sound terrible no matter how expensive you home system is. They do have an LP of this album, but I highly doubt it sounds any better, as I believe the quality came from crappy recording equipment.
On a side note, it would be extremely interesting to see some figures regarding the tolerances at which records are made, along with the tolerance of different record player cartridges. Analog or no, everything is only good up to a certain percentage of accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3 "Sound quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 "Sound quality"
Give me a system that can deliver this experience while I am at the gym exercising, without disturbing those around me, at a price under $400, and I'll actually care that such an experience is possible in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MP3 "Sound quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MP3 "Sound quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3 "Sound Quality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MP3 "Sound Quality"
MP3 is a compressed format meaning you run an uncompressed file through an algorithm and remove a shitload of data to bring down the final size.
Imagine having the number from 1 - 100 lined up, now remove 90 of those numbers. It is still a range from 1 - 100 but you are missing 90% of the data.
You can for example remove a lot of data by stripping away the hertz ranges humans can't hear.
In short. It is not the same fucking thing as vinyl. You may not enjoy vinyl but at least it hasn't been fucking raped in the process of creation like a fucking MP3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music has shifted roles
Because of this, it doesn't matter what the "quality" is of the music because it's not the focus, it's just filling in the emptiness of whatever else is going on.
Now, when I have people come over and we watch a movie in my basement in HD with my decent, but nowhere near high end Yamaha 5.1 surround setup, everyone's reaction is usually "Wow, that sounds amazing," but I don't think they would have enjoyed the movie any less if the audio was only the crappy 10-watt TV speakers. In fact, they would probably enjoy the movie more (at first) with their crappy speakers because the better audio quality becomes the focus and not the movie itself. They're concentrating too much on how detailed the floor creaking and actor's voice are instead of the scene those sounds are in. After a while of this though, they get used to it and the audio and music move into the background where it doesn't matter if it's 7.1 PCM or 2.0 CRAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music has shifted roles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JEEEEZUZ
PUSH THOSE GLASSES WITH THE TAPE ON THE BRIDGE BACK UP ON YOUR NOSE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I MEAN IT. JUST TAKE YOUR TINY LITTLE PENIS, PUT IT BACK IN YOUR UNDEROOS WHERE IT BELONGS AND GET BACK UNDER YOUR MOMMY'S APRON.
"Speaking as a Computer Engineer"
FFUUCCKK OOFFFF
SPEAKING AS A REALITY ENGINEER, I CAN SAY WITH 100% PRECISION THAT YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF NAVEL GAZING WEIRDOS. GET A FUCKING LIFE, OR AT LEAST CHANGE YOUR NAME TO NEIL YOUNG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JEEEEZUZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music has shifted roles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music has shifted roles
Off the top of my head, here are the times I normally listen to music:
-in the car
-at the gym
-at work
-while using the computer
In all of those cases, the focus isn't the music. The music is there to complement the environment. And for the majority of people, I'll bet that's the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music has shifted roles
Do you think a dance club is going to lose business because they play 128kbps MP3s instead of CDs or vinyl? No, but if the drinks suck, or it's too small, or if the people are asshole's, or if the actual songs being played don't flow well, then that hurts the club experience, not the audio quality.
When I said no one sits around listening to music, I should have said the vast majority of young people today don't sit around listening to music. I didn't think I needed to make that distinction since the article is about young people today. You may be one of the young exceptions who actually sit in a room with your friends, without talking, and truly appreciate the music. For doing that, yes, you absolutely need something lossless going through a high end piece of equipment to be able to hear the individual instruments, not just one big ball of sound.
Concerts are further evidence that people...err... the vast majority of young people today don't really care about the music itself, but about the experience it was associated with. If I went to see Green Day, and they had the most kickass sound setup, and they played their music perfectly, but all they did was play music, no talking to the crowed between songs, and everyone was forced to sit down and keep absolutely quiet, people would say the concert sucked (I personally would love it, since the music is the only part of a concert I enjoy).
Now I must go take my own life because at one time I played World of Warcraft and Doombringer, which sounds like a Warcraft name, does not approve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Water
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are funny
There's more to enjoying music than bit rates and hertz. Argue all you want but if I enjoy music my way inside my brain, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? I mean let's be honest that's what it is about isn't it? It's not about bit rates but who's right and who's wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the reluctant audiophile
I've always been a very, very heavy consumer of music - a few thousand cds and lots of (legal) downloads.
And I listened to all of it on a $99 Sony boombox.
Anyway, about a year and a half ago, I just started to get *tired* of listening. Nothing sounded dead wrong, but it didn't sound right either; it was just kinda harsh.
So I bought better speakers for a computer (Audio Engines, for anyone keeping track) and that made things better, except...
Now I could hear more problems too. What was ok, (cds basically) got better, but by and large the downloads got worse.
*This was nothing I wanted.* The last thing I was interested in was becoming all obsessive about sound quality. As someone else noted, audiophiles are always at risk of listening to the sound instead of the music.
But it's a vicious cycle: once you can hear things a little better, you are more aware of what's not so good, which leads you to improve what you can, which leads you to better and worse.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I have zero quarrel with someone who listens to mp3s - I wish I still could. But I can't and I get why other people can't either.
Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY
btw - You can work yourself into the state I describe for a lot less than $20k or even $5 k. My current family room set up is a used set of Paradigm Atoms, ($100), an Oppo universal player for $135, a Trends class T amp for $150, an Antique Sound Lab pre-amp, (used) for $125 and a Squeezebox, which cost me a couple hundred bucks.
So maybe $700 in all, for a lifetime of music listening ruined. What a deal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's my take
Mp3's are also far more convenient to handle, as they take up way less space then pure lossless files. You can fit maybe 6 mp3 albums in the space of 1 lossless album.
Even though there *is* a difference between a high-quality mp3 file and a lossless file, the difference you hear is NOT worth the storage space required (on a computer). It simply isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAME
The theory is that jitter is reduced and there is no brickwall filters and thus on ringing effect. I know it sounds crazy, what about bandwidth? Seems to not be a big factor.
I have not done the test myself, but know of some very respected engineers that preferred the LAME MP3 encoded stream vs the regular CD.
Bottom line, it is very important what algorithm you use when encoding. It seems to me the LAME encoder is king when it comes to encoding to mp3. Also check out "exact audio copy" and use it in the chain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compression, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your reality vs my reality
In the immortal words of that hulking menace Rodney King:
"Can't we all just get along" Dude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dijit.com/dijits/ahs/ahs/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all f*cked in the head, and ears
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
One the reason why young kids say this is cause all they want is more more more, this is drilled into them from a early age by Parent, the government (especially if your american) and the media.
The dont care about how it sounds only that they have 100 days worth of degraded music. And MP3 allows them to do this, one cause you can find MP3 for free and at least for a small amount.
As for the vinyl part... people prefer vinyl due to the fact it produces a higher spectrum of sound.
With music in a computer you can only get tones up to 22K (44.1 k sample rate/nyquiest theory) using A-D/D-A Convertors.
But with vinyl these overtones stay in the signal allows for more even harmonics creating that pleasant warm sound.
And you say the kids prefer MP3 over Vinyl or WAV do they even know any better....
If you play Justin Timberlake on Mp3 then Mozart or Cream on Vinyl of course there going to say MP3... One there not listening for the sound difference they are listen to the music they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and these were initially .flac format and I encoded to .mp4 using Nero AAC average bitrate 500k.
The old fogies who love vinyl prefer the soft treble but won't admit that it is a worse copy than the cd (not always some studios cd plants screw up the cd mastering)
Anyone who thinks vinyl gives you honest midrange/treble needs to go see some live shows lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sampling
Vinyl is dying!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newest jordan shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3's are good.
And there are other great formats like OGG Vorbis, AAC, WAV, and more! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]