Who still listen to CDs?

Despite this guy's insufferable arrogance
To be fair to him, he's not like this on some of his other videos. When he's being instructional, he's nicely neutral and informative. And he's always articulate and knows how to get a point across in a simple way.
 
A lot of players in cars will play Wave files, not just MP3s, which will give you the fidelity of the CD. Plus with today's USB storage capacity, no reason not to do the higher quality.
Back in the early 2000s, I worked for a company and the people all had bootleg CDs. A guy offers me a copy of his bootleg MP3 Bee Gees Greatest Hits. I take a listen and it's the lowest quality MP3. It sounded like it was in a tunnel with tons of reverb and kick back. It sure as hell didn't sound like the Bee Gee's greatest hits. When I told him about it, he denied it sounding bad, and that's just the way the songs sounded. The Bee Gees didn't have that kind of slapback echo on everything.

My preferred program is AIFF. They always sound great. They just don't play on everything.
 
Back in the early 2000s, I worked for a company and the people all had bootleg CDs. A guy offers me a copy of his bootleg MP3 Bee Gees Greatest Hits. I take a listen and it's the lowest quality MP3. It sounded like it was in a tunnel with tons of reverb and kick back. It sure as hell didn't sound like the Bee Gee's greatest hits. When I told him about it, he denied it sounding bad, and that's just the way the songs sounded. The Bee Gees didn't have that kind of slapback echo on everything.

My preferred program is AIFF. They always sound great. They just don't play on everything.
AIFF is becoming better supported. Still on older devices, might be a PITA to get to play. But for a very long time (at least the last 10 years), wav files has not been a problem.
 
Back in the early 2000s, I worked for a company and the people all had bootleg CDs. A guy offers me a copy of his bootleg MP3 Bee Gees Greatest Hits. I take a listen and it's the lowest quality MP3. It sounded like it was in a tunnel with tons of reverb and kick back. It sure as hell didn't sound like the Bee Gee's greatest hits. When I told him about it, he denied it sounding bad, and that's just the way the songs sounded. The Bee Gees didn't have that kind of slapback echo on everything.

My preferred program is AIFF. They always sound great. They just don't play on everything.
So some guy does a crappy job converting some files by using low quality MP3 and it's MP3's fault? That's like saying that all hamburgers are bad because you got a crappy one at a dirty diner using crappy meat!

MP3 at 256 to 320kbs is pretty much indistinguishable from a CD. There isn't any "reverb" or "slapback" on any of my MP3 conversions. I remember when I first put MP3s on my RCA Lyra player. I tried using 64k because Compact Flash card were pretty expensive. At 64K, the sound was pretty lousy. 128K was decent and if you were just listening on the cheap earbuds, you really couldn't tell much.

For a car, CD quality is pretty much a waste. Unless you're blasting the sound, the noise floor is way too high to really hear a difference.
 
MP3 at 256 to 320kbs is pretty much indistinguishable from a CD.
That's pretty much what I've often found.
I remember when I first put MP3s on my RCA Lyra player. I tried using 64k because Compact Flash card were pretty expensive
Because I was kind of excited at finding some rare albums that had acquired 'legendary' status at 64K, I was tolerant {read: stupid} back in 2007. But everything sounded like it was recorded in a baked bean can. They were horrible. I reached the point where I'd rather not have the legendary music I wanted than have it at 64Kbps and I chucked them. Still haven't found them but like the fox with the sour grapes, I'm not really bothered. Music at 64Kbps is like being made to snog with a family of foxes. Deep tongues and all ! 🤮:sick:
At 64K, the sound was pretty lousy
'Lousy' is being polite, kind and diplomatic all in one. Encoding 64kbps should be a jailable offence, complete with hard labour and lumpy gruel. And a rat-infested cell. And regular beatings from a cell warden of dubious intent.
128K was decent and if you were just listening on the cheap earbuds, you really couldn't tell much
I remember back in 2007 when I first downloaded deleted albums on the internet. I found a site called Heavenly Grooves that each week posted 8 or 9 obscure and out-of-print albums from Christian Rock's early days, anything from 1964 to 1979. It was a great site and the first time I found it, I remember the site proprietor had a post where he said anyone that encoded at less than 128KbPS needed their ears tested or words to that effect.
I hadn't a clue what he was talking about.
Now I do !
He was right.
Some of my MP3s at 128 sound as good as some of the ones at 320 although I always go for the highest quality available. The MP3 players that I use for swimming have all the songs on them at 128kbps and I have no problem with the quality of any of them. They sound great. And I can fit 927 and 935 songs on a 4GB player, which is good bearing in mind there are some lengthy pieces like Pink Floyd's "Echoes", Mahavishnu Orchestra's "Dreams" and loads of classical pieces that ain't 3 minutes long !
 
So some guy does a crappy job converting some files by using low quality MP3 and it's MP3's fault? That's like saying that all hamburgers are bad because you got a crappy one at a dirty diner using crappy meat!

MP3 at 256 to 320kbs is pretty much indistinguishable from a CD. There isn't any "reverb" or "slapback" on any of my MP3 conversions. I remember when I first put MP3s on my RCA Lyra player. I tried using 64k because Compact Flash card were pretty expensive. At 64K, the sound was pretty lousy. 128K was decent and if you were just listening on the cheap earbuds, you really couldn't tell much.

For a car, CD quality is pretty much a waste. Unless you're blasting the sound, the noise floor is way too high to really hear a difference.
How do you do a shitty job of coverting files to MP3? How is that even possible?

Someone gives you a store bought CD. You put it in the computer and instead of using the medium or large file MP3, you use the small file MP3, and that's what you get. That's the computer/MP3 software's fault, not the person duping the CD. Them listening to this crap, that was in no way close to what the artist intended is even more mystifying.
 
How do you do a shitty job of coverting files to MP3? How is that even possible?

Someone gives you a store bought CD. You put it in the computer and instead of using the medium or large file MP3, you use the small file MP3, and that's what you get. That's the computer/MP3 software's fault, not the person duping the CD. Them listening to this crap, that was in no way close to what the artist intended is even more mystifying.
I think you have to remember when MP3s came out. Internet connections were not that high, 56K modems were the high tech of the day, you could stream them, and storage was at a premium.

I know those factors played into the compression schema one used more than the grade of the music at the time. MP3s compression came out in the middle 90's, or at least that is when I learned of them. (Just read Wikipedia .bit started in 91) You have to throw that into the conversation.
 
I would never buy MP3s, but I always upload my CDs to my laptop and I listen to most of my music off of that.

Because the household can't stand me blasting music all day long :)
 
Back
Top