Jump to content
The Fuzz damn you!

Will the crappy sound of MP3 replace the crappy sound of vinyl?

Recommended Posts

All this talk is making me want to pull out the ol' turntable and make it (rather than the CD mini-system currently in use) the staple living-room music-maker. Very fond memories attached to plenty of those albums and singles.

 

And you gotta admit, there's just so much more *room* for awesome cover-art on a vinyl sleeve. Even on a single! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the same, even worse when they are secondhand ones and you want to know where and when it was pressed.

 

I usually resort to buying a pair of those cheap arse magnifying ones from Crazies, actually, that is what I am using now because I can't remember where my script ones are :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.......I keep some in my van but I always forget them!

 

Even before my eyes 'went' I had trouble reading some fineprint on CDs.

 

I reckon they still do the artwork LP cover size and then shrink it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to turn this room upside down until I find my pair!

Lucky I have this cheap pair, or it might be a lot harder to find them :P

 

That's if they are in here somewhere *Sigh*

 

I just picked up a LP "Fine Young Cannibals" I forgot how good this dudes singing voice is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with music covers is that there're no standards. Which would be OK if everyone decided that customers being able to read the name of their band/album/song was a good idea - but only about 60% of the discs have spines with readable artist/album information, and plenty of those are in an unusual script.

 

Maybe I've just been spoilt by console game standardisation, but I don't see the gaming scene being creatively stifled by informative packaging...

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LogicprObe, datafast69, or

 

Ye Who Are Cocksure That They Can Easily Tell The Difference Between High Bitrate Mp3 And Uncompressed WAV :-

 

perhaps you will participate in a little experiment?

  • you provide me with some uncompressed music of your choice
  • i compress it to mp3 at 320 kbps and reconvert it to WAV
  • i then cut up some concurrent song segments into randomly ordered pairs (WAV / mp3-WAV) for comparison
  • we see how many times you can correctly identify which is which
i can see ways to make this experiment cheat proof, but i wont bother to go into more detail if it turns out y'all are chicken :D

 

you seem to think you can reliably tell the difference, and i think you probably cant. but the aim here is not to embarrass anyone. i know that even the most astute among us are not beyond tricking ourselves, or being tricked by our senses -- and that goes both ways. i just want answers. i want the truth!

 

either way, it will be an educational process for one and all. how about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they could just. Although, really, I don't see the need. If people enjoy listening to uncompressed music more than high bit-rate MP3s, where's the harm? Also, given the LP has previously refused to test FLAC vs WAV, I can't see him doing this. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LogicprObe, datafast69, or

 

Ye Who Are Cocksure That They Can Easily Tell The Difference Between High Bitrate Mp3 And Uncompressed WAV :-

 

perhaps you will participate in a little experiment?

Sorry, but I see no need to participate in this.

 

If you can't hear the difference, then the issue is with the system you are using, or you just can't hear it with the ears you have :P

 

I have done comparisons of my own, for myself and that is where I draw my truth from.

 

;)

 

Edit:Oh, and I have a friend that at times can hear things in a recording that I can't pick up on myself, and I don't question the fact that he has better hearing than I do.

 

We are all different :)

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See?

 

The Placebo Effect can make for a wonderful listening experience. :-P

Hay Fuzz :)

 

Many people scream "Placebo Effect" when they can't except the personal experience of others :P

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See?

 

The Placebo Effect can make for a wonderful listening experience. :-P

Hay Fuzz :)

 

Many people scream "Placebo Effect" when they can't except the personal experience of others :P

 

:)

 

And many people scream "colouring my CDs in green and putting them in the freezer makes them sound so much better!" or swear black and blue that Monster cables sound better than coat-hangers; which is why God, through the careful process of evolution, created science, and thereby the double-blind experimental design.

 

But you wouldn't want to try that, because it'd wreck your placebo effect.

Edited by The Fuzz damn you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what ever makes you happy, Fuzz.

 

Though, remember that belief and fact are often very different :P

 

Lossy compression removes data from the original recording, and that IS a fact!

 

Enjoy the music, mate :)

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what ever makes you happy, Fuzz.

 

Though, remember that belief and fact are often very different :P

Indeed. A fact I've been stating for a few posts now. :-)

 

Lossy compression removes data from the original recording, and that IS a fact!

 

Enjoy the music, mate :)

Oh, it sure does. And I will -- you do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you? Do you prefer MP3s? Or do you like your music "the way it was intended?" And how about you vinyl aficionados? What's your excuse?

I've just discovered multi-channel DVD-Audio, so for me, it's the way it was intended.

 

Prime example.....I've had Pink Floyds' Dark Side of the Moon on DVD-Audio for about a month now. It can be played in either DTS4.1/Dolby Digital4.1 or MLP 4.1 Quadraphonic, & it's turned me....for after years of listening to their big songs on the radio, I never got why this band was so huge.

 

Listening to DSotM the way it was meant to sound, I now appreciate this band much more. I didn't realise how much detail i'd missed on prior listenings to this album. Even the clanging of the cash registers at the beginning of Money have a chime & thump to them you wont get without a sub & half decent surround speakers around you. It's like the microphone's a millimetre away from the thing.

 

I'm now hoping to find a DVD-Audio of Wish You Were Here.

 

Even HDCD, without me realising what it was stood out to me - i'd owned Dire Straights Greatest Hits for years & couldn't work out why it sounded more "vibrant" than all my other CDs. It wasn't until I got into multichannel audio, that I found that it was a higher bitrate CD & looking at the discs cover, found the HDCD logo which just highlighted how ordinary CD audio (& hence MP3 audio) actually is.

 

I just wish more artists chose to release their music on either SACD or DVD-Audio as it's miles better than CD/MP3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get a DVD-A of Dark Side Of The Moon?

Talking to Zebra, he says that the DVD-A version is better than the SACD. I want the DVD-A version to compare to my SACD version.

 

Also - after getting my SACD player to work, I'm sold on multichannel. I agree that there is so much detail that I miss on previous listening to the album until I got it to work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this multichannel thing.........and being a musician.....

 

I prefer 2.1/2.0 because I like listen to a band.....rather than be in the middle of it.

 

But it just ain't the same.

 

When playing, you either hang in the same spot/area because you've found the 'onstage' sweetspot, or rove around searching for it!

 

You can yell at the foldback guys all night and never get 'the sound' you want because it just isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this multichannel thing.........and being a musician.....

 

I prefer 2.1/2.0 because I like listen to a band.....rather than be in the middle of it.

 

But it just ain't the same.

 

When playing, you either hang in the same spot/area because you've found the 'onstage' sweetspot, or rove around searching for it!

 

You can yell at the foldback guys all night and never get 'the sound' you want because it just isn't there.

Just to clear up, when I mentioned i'd hoped more artists released their music on SACD/DVD-Audio, I didn't mean for it to necessarily be in multichannel.

 

The person who got me this copy of DSotM is a bit of mulitchannel fan who mentions Pink Floyd held some concerts with rear speakers during the DSotM tour, as they intended to surround the audience with their music. The 5.1 SACD of the album was an official release, approved by the band, but from all reports, the true original recording was done in a Quadraphonic setup, but the guy who was working on this official release didn't end up getting it approved by the band for some reason (I think due the complexities of recording in Quad, he ran out of time to finish it how he wanted).

 

But "someone" did finish it in 2006. No one knows if it was the guy who started it all those years ago, of if it was someone new. But the thing sounds unreal. & I haven't even listened to the lossless MLP track - my DVD-Audio player died, so I can only play the lossy DTS track on my PS3 - a good thing that the disc is able to be enjoyed on standard DVD players.

 

I agree, Logicprobe - if the original intent of the artist is to listen to their album in 2 channels, I want a 2 channel SACD/DVD-A version of that release, but if it's designed to be a 5.1/4.1 track album, give me a multichannel SACD/DVD-A. Either way, it kills CD/MP3 quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuzz, I wont try and explain the reason for the differences of the various formats. Suffice to say, and I believe we are all in agreement, that to each their own.

 

A small story though. Rod Crawford, a Physics professor among other things, is the founder and chief designer of Legend Acoustics loudspeakers. This is a name held in high regard across the globe for their wonderful sounding speakers.

 

Reading an interview some years ago on the release of the Legend Kurre 4 speaker, he was asked a question on why he chose a particular polypropylene capacitor (WIMA) in the speakers crossover. To paraphrase, "I'm a scientist. When I measure a group of capacitors of the same value but different type, they all read the same. When I listen I can hear the difference, and this one just sounded better. It's terribly frustrating as I can't explain why."

 

Now I don't want to doubt the fine folks on the atomic forums but... If a professor of Physics, Metallurgy & Philosophy whose achievements cover studying patents and research into electron microscopy to heading a team in setting out the curriculum for Hobart's Elizabeth College in electronics, computing & robotics. Not to mention heading the Linn team in the development on their speaker line - and his own. Well, if this chap can't explain something as apparently simple as why 1 cap sounds better than another, then what hope is there of explaining why one person favours analogue over digital?

 

To take the capacitor one step further, I can hear differences in different circuit positions. A close friend can too and dozens or more over at DIY Audio. Jon Broskie's Aikido preamp is designed for 2 different output capacitors for different 'flavours'. As he says, which is I believe a quote from some other place, "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."

 

I use capacitors here as an example as I understand the subject a little better. But it does show that, for example, a friend prefers, in a particular amps input cap position, a small, 4.7uF electrolytic capacitor. I preferred a polypropylene Mundorf M-Cap of the same value - both bypolar's.

 

Another discussion on solid state amplification v tubes. Or how fullrange driver lovers spit on multiway driver configs yet the fullrange drivers clearly have very ragged response curves, many with steep rolling off at or around 10k and not much bass output below 50, or even 80 and sometimes 120Hz. Many folks do not use BSC or notch filters to smooth these curves out and swear they're the best sound they've ever heard.

 

My points are:

 

Some things cannot be simply explained away.

 

Many things can be explained away simply by personal preferences.

Edited by lazyfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LogicprObe, datafast69, or

 

Ye Who Are Cocksure That They Can Easily Tell The Difference Between High Bitrate Mp3 And Uncompressed WAV :-

 

perhaps you will participate in a little experiment?

Sorry, but I see no need to participate in this.

 

If you can't hear the difference, then the issue is with the system you are using, or you just can't hear it with the ears you have :P

 

I have done comparisons of my own, for myself and that is where I draw my truth from.

 

;)

 

Edit:Oh, and I have a friend that at times can hear things in a recording that I can't pick up on myself, and I don't question the fact that he has better hearing than I do.

 

We are all different :)

 

 

 

well that is, of course, your prerogative.

 

ya know, ive met some people who cant tell the difference between 56kbps and CD! if either they cant physically hear it or they choose not to -- fine with me. there is after all no accounting for taste. but if i ever meet the same kind of person who also swears black and blue that there is NO DIFFERENCE period, i will want to put them straight and prove the contrary. because i care about that 'triviality' known as the truth, and the sound of bullshit is oh so much more offensive to my ears than the lowest fidelity audio.

 

in exactly the same way that someone like the Fuzz visibly twitches (i presume :D) when someone waxes lyrical about the increase in quality offered by pointless super-expensive cables, i dont like hearing people speading misinformation about lossy compression. ive done a fair bit of listening on Tannoys et al in proper studio spaces, so when you say suggest you easily hear a difference, youre either saying your ears are super exceptional or my ears are deficient. whereas i simply favour the hypothesis that your objectivity is deficient.

 

why wouldnt you welcome the chance to prove me wrong, with your music and your system, if i can make it a transparent process that cant be rigged against you? if our positions were reversed i would see it as a bit of fun.

 

but i guess i understand where youre coming from. when i tell people about the pink elephants i see prancing in the clouds, most people dont believe they exist! but thats okay -- i just tell them the optical centre of their brain musnt be sensitive enough to discern the subtle contrast differences between bright white and bright pink. that, or its all just a matter of taste anyway, and come on everybody lets all choose to live in a bubble of our own self-delusion! ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even HDCD, without me realising what it was stood out to me - i'd owned Dire Straights Greatest Hits for years & couldn't work out why it sounded more "vibrant" than all my other CDs. It wasn't until I got into multichannel audio, that I found that it was a higher bitrate CD & looking at the discs cover, found the HDCD logo which just highlighted how ordinary CD audio (& hence MP3 audio) actually is.

 

I just wish more artists chose to release their music on either SACD or DVD-Audio as it's miles better than CD/MP3.

the extra quality of high def formats most likely results from better mixing/mastering (because dynamic range can be preserved rather than slamming the shit out of everything for the benefit of average joes with white earbuds riding the bus) and of course the option of multiple channels. whether you prefer the extra channels though is of course categorically a matter of taste.

 

ive heard a few 5.1 mixes and to me its very hit or miss. some kinds of music do not benefit from the whole 'envelopment' thing. but a bit of judicious and sparing use of the surrounds for reverb and the odd instrument, can avoid it being distracting or gimmicky. i am eager to hear Depeche Modes painstaking 5.1 remixes of some of their earlier work -- because to me electronic music goes into surround like a fish to water. but then, i found the surround version of Dire Straights' Brothers In Arms to be fricken awesome.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×