Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×
LogicprObe

For those who think MP3 is great.

Recommended Posts

Classical music is interesting. I've noticed that classical music on analogue radio also sounds quite good. Other genres not so much.

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS..........digital radio is only a different sort of MP3.

 

I'm not a fan of classical but a lot of it suffers from poor recording just due to the sheer logistics of it and too much room influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that through $5 earpieces everything is going to sound shit...............but I reckon you could still tell the difference between CD and 128kbs.

Agreed.

 

But then, I can't tell any quality difference at 320kb/s to a CD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that through $5 earpieces everything is going to sound shit...............but I reckon you could still tell the difference between CD and 128kbs.

Agreed.

 

But then, I can't tell any quality difference at 320kb/s to a CD.

 

I agree if you are listening through buds.

 

Compression is applied to the current FM broardcast material as well, I think.

All radio has dynamic compression, otherwise you can blow the transmitter.

 

We are talking about data compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see.

 

So digital is going to that extreem.....that makes me sad, won't effect myself as i don't intend to get a digital radio tuner.

 

Although, I would think that it is yet another nail in the coffin for quality in audio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AM and FM both limit the frequency band but you get everything in between, whereas digital is MP3 under another name.

 

At high quality, it can be reasonable........but I don't trust them.

They'd rather have more channels and do it cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I would think that they would go for the higher number of channels too, It's about the bottom line rather than delivering the best sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's spot on, Les.

 

They also made sacrifices to be able to offer the alternate view angles for sports coverage, if I recall correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's spot on, Les.

 

They also made sacrifices to be able to offer the alternate view angles for sports coverage, if I recall correct.

Yeah!

 

Remember we were going to be able to pick our view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the belief that people get used to poor quality.............which is why most can't hear the difference.

Spot on in my mind.

Like that guy said, many people for the past 10 years or so have only heard music in mp3 format.

I guess people can only rate things that are part of thier experience and if mp3 audio is the best that they have experienced then it will rate well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm constantly disappointed with a lot of CDs I get when they aren't even close to the original vinyl release.

 

Vinyl is a pain in the arse but it's worth it for the sound!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have CD's sounding really good now (for CD's) but I still spin the blackstuff.

 

Hay! I could now justify upgrading the analog end...hmm...new phono stage would be nice :)

 

Just thinking about what Yogs' just mentioned (and you earlier), and I remember I used to think my Audigy and logitech's sounded like hot shit! not any more, acually so far from it I think it odd that I even thought so back then. It was back then that I didn't care if I was playing MP3s too :P

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of classical but a lot of it suffers from poor recording just due to the sheer logistics of it and too much room influence.

True, difficult to record. All methods for recording orchestras have strengths and weaknesses. The link I posted was recorded with only two mics at a single point, so good recordings can be made. Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is one of those things that I will ignore and kinda pretend that my sound quality is awesome because if I change I'll be stuck with it for life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue is cost. Logic's likely right, I might be able to tell the subtle differences between a high-bitrate MP3 and a CD if I was listening on a decent sound-system: I dont have one. I can't afford one at the moment either. I have decent earbuds, and they do a good job (Apple In-Ear, the new dual driver model). I have a decent CD player too... and I can almost tell the quality difference. For me however, the sheer cost associated with having a proper setup is a turn off, as well as the logistics. My iPod goes everywhere with me, and that's what matters :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue is cost. Logic's likely right, I might be able to tell the subtle differences between a high-bitrate MP3 and a CD if I was listening on a decent sound-system: I dont have one. I can't afford one at the moment either. I have decent earbuds, and they do a good job (Apple In-Ear, the new dual driver model). I have a decent CD player too... and I can almost tell the quality difference. For me however, the sheer cost associated with having a proper setup is a turn off, as well as the logistics. My iPod goes everywhere with me, and that's what matters :)

I think that a lot of people out there are in your situation, even most people perhaps. Decent audio gear is not expensive for me, so I guess just a matter of priorities.

 

I think this is one of those things that I will ignore and kinda pretend that my sound quality is awesome because if I change I'll be stuck with it for life

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing; once you can hear the difference, it doesn't automatically mean your choice is removed and you must have high quality everything, full stop. Most of the time I listen to mp3s its when I am out and about listening to a portable player, and even with foam in ears there is so much background noise, microphonic noise from the cable, and thuds from my own footsteps, that any subtle differences don't matter. Where it counts, I enjoy quality. Where it doesn't, I benefit from small files and portability. Mp3 and ipod beats dubbed tape and a chunky walkman. (: Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue is cost. Logic's likely right, I might be able to tell the subtle differences between a high-bitrate MP3 and a CD if I was listening on a decent sound-system: I dont have one. I can't afford one at the moment either. I have decent earbuds, and they do a good job (Apple In-Ear, the new dual driver model). I have a decent CD player too... and I can almost tell the quality difference. For me however, the sheer cost associated with having a proper setup is a turn off, as well as the logistics. My iPod goes everywhere with me, and that's what matters :)

Maybe the sheer cost of buying music is the factor?

 

 

I think this is one of those things that I will ignore and kinda pretend that my sound quality is awesome because if I change I'll be stuck with it for life

That's a bit like sticking it in for a while and pulling it out before you cum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good interview with Leon Zervos in the latest AT magazine.

He's just moved back to Australia and is just as scathing about MP3.

 

http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/?p=302

A couple of relevant excerpts.

For the full 4 page interview...........buy the mag.....it's cheap.

 

 

AS - People watch high-res DVDs more than ever and that side of the industry seems almost obsessed with increasing resolutions and improving picture quality.

Why is the exact opposite happening in music?

 

LZ - Because music has become two little buds in your ear and off you go.

 

AS - But that's not necessarily an excuse either, is it - the quality of the earbuds?

 

LZ - Well, no, but now that the internet is a lot faster, I predict things will improve.........hopefully MP3 will disappear off the face of the earth, sooner rather than later, but I'm not confident.

 

AS - So, are you mastering with an 'MP3 mentality' then, in anticipation of what gets lost during the downsizing of the file?

 

LZ - No. I'm mastering with a 'disc cutting' mentality. I don't really master for a 128 MP3, but sometimes I convert a file t 192 and have a listen.............you can certainly hear it. The so called 'high-res' MP3s are much better. They still maintain their punch and clarity. The lower ones are just horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think George Massenburg is going a bit far saying that we should be using 24/48... most commercial music will not benefit from 24 bit recordings, and not all 24 bit converters are better than all 16 bit converters.

why is it going too far? we already use 16/44.1 for releases. its not *that* much of a data increase!

 

whether most commercial music will benefit greatly, or if most people notice the difference, isnt the point. or, it shouldnt be. we should have the option to escape the limitations of outmoded physical format standards. just give us teh hi-res digital files yo!

 

as for the converters, could you elaborate? obviously there are good and bad D/A converters. but ive personally never compared a good 16bit D/A with a bad 24bit D/A and wonder why you appear to be assuming such a divide would likely exist in consumer level equipment post 2009.

 

 

I'm not a fan of classical but a lot of it suffers from poor recording just due to the sheer logistics of it and too much room influence.

how so?

 

for many aficionados, hall acoustics are an integral component of the "proper" sound of many classical instruments and styles. i guess, like me, you generally prefer a more close-miked 'cinematic' aesthetic for orchestras, which is more commitment than relying on a simple array. although, as komoso pointed out, even a single spaced pair can sound unbelievably good in the right circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think George Massenburg is going a bit far saying that we should be using 24/48... most commercial music will not benefit from 24 bit recordings, and not all 24 bit converters are better than all 16 bit converters.

why is it going too far? we already use 16/44.1 for releases. its not *that* much of a data increase!

No its not a huge increase in data, but it would require too big a change across the board to upgrade all the equipment. A lot of gear is 16 bit, and replacing it to make full 24 bit paths would cost a lot, and the difference would not be very big. It would also mean that commercial music would need to be released in 16 bit and 24 bit formats, increasing the costs of production without much increase in sales, if any.

 

whether most commercial music will benefit greatly, or if most people notice the difference, isnt the point. or, it shouldnt be. we should have the option to escape the limitations of outmoded physical format standards. just give us teh hi-res digital files yo!

I disagree. I think an appreciable difference in sound quality is the only point. As I said, I haven't met a single person who could tell the difference between 44.1 and 48 KHz. Only very dynamic music will benefit from 24 bit recordings, and the way things are, most recordings are heavily compressed. What makes you think 16/44, the industry standard, is outmoded? The issue, as far as I could tell from what I saw in the video, is not the shortcomings of 16/44, but low quality mp3s.

 

as for the converters, could you elaborate? obviously there are good and bad D/A converters. but ive personally never compared a good 16bit D/A with a bad 24bit D/A and wonder why you appear to be assuming such a divide would likely exist in consumer level equipment post 2009.

I only mentioned this because the average consumer assumes that 24 bits is better than 16 bits, but its not as clear cut as that. And I dont assume that there would be much of a divide in consumer level equipment... most is pretty average to my ear, and I think the consumer audio market is little more than a numbers game, with the dollar as the main figure. Compare a very good piece of professional audio gear at 16 bit to your average 24 bit converter available in whatever dvd player or consumer level soundcard, using a well recorded source with a high dynamic range, and hear the difference for yourself... that would be better than any explanation I could give you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you work it out... 16 bits, in linear signed PCM... means you have 65536 voltage levels where 32767 might refer to +1.0V and say, -32768 might refer to -1.0V. So that 2V swing is graduated in steps of 30.517uV.

 

The relationship between the maximum possible voltage, and minimum voltage, gives us the dynamic range.

20*log10( 30uV/1.0V ) = -90dB

 

The human ear has a dynamic range of -140dB or so, and the noise floor in most environments is well above the -90dB quoted there. Ergo... 16 bits is "good enough" for most people. :-)

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

×