G
Greg_L
Banned
lol @ this honk
lol @ this honk
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Ahh...total bullshit!
Maybe listening through an iPod/earbud rig you wouldn't tell the difference between an MP3 and CD...but I'll pick 'em out for you 9-out-10 times on my studio monitors or my stereo system (and my hearing ain't as good as it use to be.
)You have to get up over 200Kbs with MP3 files before they *start* to lose the MP3 signature.
Sure...jogging or in a car or wherever...you might not notice it, or it might not be a concern to you, but if you do an A/B on an HQ audio system, you can notice it if you know what to listen for.
Now...you might argue that no one will A/B on an HQ system, and since everyone uses iPods/earbuds these days and is use to the degraded audio quality, that it's not that important anymore...but that's just your personal choice, it has nothing to do with there not being any audible difference.
I usually cut all my MP3 files at 320KBs...but I'll also put up some 160KBs stuff for the folks that can't tell the difference.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
yeah ....... once you get around 320 the differences get hard to detect but 320 ain't what you're getting in an itune store.
Ahh...total bullshit!
Maybe listening through an iPod/earbud rig you wouldn't tell the difference between an MP3 and CD...but I'll pick 'em out for you 9-out-10 times on my studio monitors or my stereo system (and my hearing ain't as good as it use to be.
You have to get up over 200Kbs with MP3 files before they *start* to lose the MP3 signature.
Sure...jogging or in a car or wherever...you might not notice it, or it might not be a concern to you, but if you do an A/B on an HQ audio system, you can notice it if you know what to listen for.
Now...you might argue that no one will A/B on an HQ system, and since everyone uses iPods/earbuds these days and is use to the degraded audio quality, that it's not that important anymore...but that's just your personal choice, it has nothing to do with there not being any audible difference.
I usually cut all my MP3 files at 320KBs...but I'll also put up some 160KBs stuff for the folks that can't tell the difference.
Although you can run an Ipod at 320 or even play wave files on it if you wish.
Gizzmo0815
New member
We can argue semantics all day. The majority of digital music retailers these days are selling at 256k or above. Which is quality enough for the type of systems that people are using these files on. If you want higher quality than that, it is also readily available. From the posts here you'd be led to believe that it's Apple that is decreasing the quality of music. Not true. If you want high quality you purchase high quality, be that in a CD format or not. As already admitted here 256k is high enough that the MAJORITY of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, nor do they care...sales support that theory. As data transfer rates improve, and hard drive space decreases in price, a point will be reached where filesize doesn't determine bitrate. Most people will be oblivious to this...the techies will rejoice because they have their bitrates back up in the stratosphere (and people will still say that vinyl still sounds best ).
The audio files available today are not what is decreasing the capability to listen to quality music. The hardware is, which is pushed by lifestyle changes over the decades. Earbuds aren't high quality, even traditional cans aren't necessarily any better. Good speakers, and good headphones are the best way to increase your listening experience usually at a price. But hitting the gym with a set of Beyerdynamic, or Audio-technica cans on your head is laughworthy. Obviously with higher quality systems, higher bitrates would be preferred. But ignoring that the majority of music listeners aren't using high quality systems because of a principle, is also silly, and potentially a lot of wasted effort. Ivory towers are fun to climb, but you gotta come down sometime
I understand the reasons behind why you wouldn't want to PRODUCE music at those quality levels, but that's not what we're talking about here.
).The audio files available today are not what is decreasing the capability to listen to quality music. The hardware is, which is pushed by lifestyle changes over the decades. Earbuds aren't high quality, even traditional cans aren't necessarily any better. Good speakers, and good headphones are the best way to increase your listening experience usually at a price. But hitting the gym with a set of Beyerdynamic, or Audio-technica cans on your head is laughworthy. Obviously with higher quality systems, higher bitrates would be preferred. But ignoring that the majority of music listeners aren't using high quality systems because of a principle, is also silly, and potentially a lot of wasted effort. Ivory towers are fun to climb, but you gotta come down sometime
I understand the reasons behind why you wouldn't want to PRODUCE music at those quality levels, but that's not what we're talking about here.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
No...it's not just "semantics".
When you say most people would not be able to tell an MP3 from a CD....it's just not true.
The fact that MP3 players have their own level of quality (they have to convert the MP3 back to analog) which might limit the amount of actual quality one can actually hear...it doesn't prove people can't hear a difference between most MP3s and CDs.
If someone has LowQ player and sees no benefit from playing HiQ MP3 files...that's a different thing.
Also...not sure your claim that most retailers are hitting 256Kbs or above.
Lots of shit is still at 128 or LESS!!!!
Gizzmo0815
New member
It IS semantics to the majority of the music listening population. A discussion on a recording forum does not an accurate sample make. The largest retailers, check Wikipedia for the list, are selling at 256 or above.
Your assurance that most people CAN tell the difference between a 256k mp3 and lossless audio may be true with the caveat that they probably have to be listening on a high quality system. Which, again, most people don't do that often. Music is mobile today. I know there is a large component of audiophiles (present company included) that don't LIKE that fact, but it doesn't make it any less true.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
So the views of a few has now become "Y'all" ? Wow, the old Hindus were right then. Everything will be subsumed into the whole !
R
RAMI
Guest
Everything will be subsumed into the whole !
I love subsuming into a hole .
Gizzmo0815
New member
So the views of a few has now become "Y'all" ? Wow, the old Hindus were right then. Everything will be subsumed into the whole !
Mostly tongue in cheek. I'm a Yankee born and bred, but my career has led me to become a transplanted Yank. Apparently the southern influences I've been subjected to over the years are catching up to me. Anything else about my chosen verbiage you'd like to discuss?
P.S. "You All" or the colloquial splice "Y'all" doesn't actually imply "the whole" as you suggested. "You all" refers to a group of people not including yourself. I.E. "You all on this forum." Although if we're going to nitpick, "You" would be just as accurate, and probably more grammatically correct. For the record.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Do you pronounce your place of employment as "glory hole" or "glo-ree hoe-wul"?
Gizzmo0815
New member
LOL. Fortunately I'm hip to your schtick Greg. I pronounce "my place of employment" as:
Or if you like the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) version:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well fine...we agree that on a proper system, people could tell the difference...and that's really all I'm pointing out.
The fact that on *crappy systems*, most people could not tell the difference (or not care), is not any kind of argument against making HQ audio, though I will agree that these days, listening to music is more about convenience than it is about audio quality.
IMO...reversing that trend can only benefit all of us that record music, because if there is greater appreciation for HQ audio...then it moves music back into conscious focus rather than just an ambient experience while we multitask our way through life.
I don't think that is going to be easily reversible (if ever)...though if one day online bandwidth becomes wide open, audio folks will naturally start increasing their file size/quality (to fill that hole
)......so maybe at some point down the road Joe Public will learn to listen to HQ music again (without ever having to do anything
). I guess my other point is that if we go in thinking: ”it doesn’t matter if I have crappy gear, and it doesn’t matter if my room sounds ass, and it doesn’t matter if everything sounds lo-fi and crude…because Joe Public is using lo-fi playback and he doesn’t care about quality, he only wants ambient ‘filler’…”….
...then that (IMO) is just a self-serving excuse for “dumbing-down” your efforts or for being too lazy to push for a higher target.
I see the “it’s only ‘home recording’, I don’t need pro quality” remarks on the forums all the time…yet many of these same folks come back over and over again to ask how to fix things and improve their productions, but they also balk when told they need to take some bigger/more serious steps...and they again say: “it’s only ‘home recording’, I don’t need pro quality”
I always go into it trying to get the best quality I can…once in awhile I get lucky.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
double post...
(stupid BBS server lag time)
(stupid BBS server lag time)
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
it's not reversible ..... the world of music has changed forever. People today have a different sort of connection to music that doesn't really require it to sound good since it's primarily for background music while they do something else. Not that many people sit down anymore and listen to an album all the way thru, focusing and concentrating on what they hear to the exclusion of doing anything else.
Hell, I'm an audiophile and I don't do that much anymore either .... just too many other things to do.
Having said that ...... I really don't give a crap about whether someone else says they can't hear a difference ....... IMO they just don't listen that closely but what the hell do I care?
I listen to what I listen to and I like, or don't like, what I like ..... or don't like. Other peoples' opinions mean absolutely nothing to me when it comes to my listening preferences.
As for those who say they can't hear the difference ...... meh ..... I got hired to play bass for an absolutely horrible band Wed. (I'm a hired gun mainly). These guys sucked so bad that even for money I doubt I would play with them again and I can't think of anyone else that's so bad I would just refuse to play because I'm all about the money.
These guys couldn't hear that they sucked and their families and friends were out and thought they sounded awesome! So here's a group of 50 or so people that think that way out of tune caterwauling and constant wrong chords sounds great so what the hell are these morons gonna notice about sound quality?
And newbies of every stripe start off that way until they learn. Some learn almost instantly and some never do.
And when I see people get indignate about the suggestion that someone else might hear things they can't hear ( "I've been playing my whole life") and they're 27 I just laugh.
So people will hear what they can hear and you're never gonna be able to tell them differently ....... they'll learn as the years go by or often they won't. Who cares?
For me ..... I go with what I hear and I'm indifferent to other opinions if I'm sure I hear it.
So as for the quality debate ...... as far as I'm concerned, I'm always gonna go with higher quality. I can burn a CD of one of my vinyl records and I can hear a difference between the two . So even a CD doesn't exactly capture every fine detail of what it's a recording of, ...... so I definitely hear it in MP3s and I want the best quality I can have always in any setting.
Better quality is gonna sound at least a little better, even on earbuds. And not all earbuds are crap either ....... check out some Etymotics.
These kinds of arguments are pointless ..... if someone can't hear the difference ..... then they can't hear it. You can't argue them into hearing something they can't hear.
Hell, I'm an audiophile and I don't do that much anymore either .... just too many other things to do.
Having said that ...... I really don't give a crap about whether someone else says they can't hear a difference ....... IMO they just don't listen that closely but what the hell do I care?
I listen to what I listen to and I like, or don't like, what I like ..... or don't like. Other peoples' opinions mean absolutely nothing to me when it comes to my listening preferences.
As for those who say they can't hear the difference ...... meh ..... I got hired to play bass for an absolutely horrible band Wed. (I'm a hired gun mainly). These guys sucked so bad that even for money I doubt I would play with them again and I can't think of anyone else that's so bad I would just refuse to play because I'm all about the money.
These guys couldn't hear that they sucked and their families and friends were out and thought they sounded awesome! So here's a group of 50 or so people that think that way out of tune caterwauling and constant wrong chords sounds great so what the hell are these morons gonna notice about sound quality?
And newbies of every stripe start off that way until they learn. Some learn almost instantly and some never do.
And when I see people get indignate about the suggestion that someone else might hear things they can't hear ( "I've been playing my whole life") and they're 27 I just laugh.
So people will hear what they can hear and you're never gonna be able to tell them differently ....... they'll learn as the years go by or often they won't. Who cares?
For me ..... I go with what I hear and I'm indifferent to other opinions if I'm sure I hear it.
So as for the quality debate ...... as far as I'm concerned, I'm always gonna go with higher quality. I can burn a CD of one of my vinyl records and I can hear a difference between the two . So even a CD doesn't exactly capture every fine detail of what it's a recording of, ...... so I definitely hear it in MP3s and I want the best quality I can have always in any setting.
Better quality is gonna sound at least a little better, even on earbuds. And not all earbuds are crap either ....... check out some Etymotics.
These kinds of arguments are pointless ..... if someone can't hear the difference ..... then they can't hear it. You can't argue them into hearing something they can't hear.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah...I hate to say it, but I agree...the new trend will probably never be reversed, though I think there will always be a certain percentage of folks who still appreciate the higher quality systems and well done audio.
AFA the argument...it's not really an argument to change anything. I mean, it's not about convincing anyone to hear something they can't.
It's when people claim there is not any difference because THEY can't hear it, that debates are triggered.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
sure, I see your point but to most people what they see or hear is a absolute ....... they feel like if the difference were there they'd hear it.
Most people can't seem to relate to the idea that different people can have ears that are better 'trained' than theirs. As witnessed by the common use of "golden ears" as a remark of derision.
And even good listeners have a problem with the fact that they will hear things differently at different times depending on their mental state or physical factors. Let's not forget ..... hearing is mainly in the brain.
So most people consider what they see or hear to be an absolute that never changes and applies to everyone when it actually doesn't even apply to themselves.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Tell me about it!!!
I've been working on a mix...trying out some new outboard gear and approches...and every time I do a test mix, and then listen to it later, it sounds different. I mean, I hear it differently.
Some of that may have to do with ear fatigue or being desensitized when listening to the same thing over and over...
...but yes, it is also in how we feel physically and mentally, how rested or tired we are, the mood we are in....etc.
And yes, I do see a trend on home-rec forums by a growing percentage of people to reject/dismiss critical listening and the need/benefit of it. Way too much of the "who cares" attitudes, and frankly I don't care if they don't care
....I'll still do it my way. (Someone should write a song about doing it "my way" )
Gizzmo0815
New member
Yeah Miroslav,
I'm not disagreeing with you on your points about the necessity of high quality audio.
My inital post in this thread was more aimed at the point about "hating Apple" and "iPod's suck".
I disagree that Apple has had any influence on the quality of music, at least not consciously. They're not in the business of producing music. It isn't their responsibility to sell 16 bit 44.1khz wav files because of some artistic principle. And it isn't the iPod either. The iPod was an answer to an unstated request from the masses. People wanted lots of music, they wanted lots of variety, they wanted it more portable than the three or four CD's they could reasonably carry in their purse or backpack, and they wanted it at a file size that didn't eat up their hard drive space.
Apple delivered a desired product. And ignoring the fact that the iPod is massively popular because it satisfies customer desires is narrow minded. Especially for producers and artists.
Today, producers, engineers, mastering engineers can't afford to ignore the trends in music consumption. I don't mean they should product lower quality music, merely that they need to be aware of the end product. But many of the recording folks on this forum and others seem to want to bitch about Apple because "their iPod is evil" and don't want to acknowledge that things have changed. They argue it's for the worst, but typically that argument sprouts from personal perspective. There are thousands...nay millions...that disagree that music sounds bad today.
My following comments merely highlighted that the iPod and iTunes isn't as DRM laden as everyone seems to think. It's one of the more open players on the market actually. And it's also the most well supported.
Hate it...but respect it also.
I'm not disagreeing with you on your points about the necessity of high quality audio.
My inital post in this thread was more aimed at the point about "hating Apple" and "iPod's suck".
I disagree that Apple has had any influence on the quality of music, at least not consciously. They're not in the business of producing music. It isn't their responsibility to sell 16 bit 44.1khz wav files because of some artistic principle. And it isn't the iPod either. The iPod was an answer to an unstated request from the masses. People wanted lots of music, they wanted lots of variety, they wanted it more portable than the three or four CD's they could reasonably carry in their purse or backpack, and they wanted it at a file size that didn't eat up their hard drive space.
Apple delivered a desired product. And ignoring the fact that the iPod is massively popular because it satisfies customer desires is narrow minded. Especially for producers and artists.
Today, producers, engineers, mastering engineers can't afford to ignore the trends in music consumption. I don't mean they should product lower quality music, merely that they need to be aware of the end product. But many of the recording folks on this forum and others seem to want to bitch about Apple because "their iPod is evil" and don't want to acknowledge that things have changed. They argue it's for the worst, but typically that argument sprouts from personal perspective. There are thousands...nay millions...that disagree that music sounds bad today.
My following comments merely highlighted that the iPod and iTunes isn't as DRM laden as everyone seems to think. It's one of the more open players on the market actually. And it's also the most well supported.
Hate it...but respect it also.