Mp3 = State of Society??

[annunaki]

I have a beef with Mp3. I hate it. People think that this compressed and limited form of audio sounds good :eek: .

Maybe it has to do with society. Society has allowed the infiltration of an inferior media format to basically take over cd. Cd was better than cassettes, cassettes were better than 8-track. We were moving in a positive direction until we got to mp3. Mp3 struggles to be slightly ahead of cassette in terms of fidelity and dynamic range. Why has this happened??

I think it is because society (at least in the US) has become complacent. Basically having a "it's good enough" attitude. Super Audio CD and DVD audio have basically flopped because people thought cd was "good enough". We still primarily use internal combustion engines because they are "good enough", even though the basic design is over 100 years old!! The majority of Americans still have standard definition TV, why? You guessed it, it is "good enough".

There was a time in our not so distant past when things were NEVER good enough. Just think, what if the Wright brothers and others in aviation at the time would have thought the flyer was good enough. Or, after their fourth generation format of flyer, said "that's good enough". We may still be using basic turbo-prop aircraft with today's society's mindset of "it's good enough".

This "good enough" mind set has permeated the workforce as well. It is very difficult for employers to find good employees. Most employees are only "good enough" not to get fired. I am not saying that they should put in overtime for free or anything like that. However, there was also a time when people took a little bit of pride in what they did. No matter what it was. Flipping burgers, picking up garbage, ethical sales, looking out for other employees, ect.

What will it take to get us out of this current state? When will society start demanding QUALITY over quantity again??

I would not have a problem with Mp3, IF (big if) it offered a SONIC ADVANTAGE to the current media standard. Unfortunately it does not even come close. In fact, because of the popularity of Mp3, some artists I enjoy (rather used to) have decided to start slacking on superior recording techniques. Their reasoning is, "why spend more money on the recording process to make it sound better, when it is just going to be compressed to hell?" It is understandable... from their standpoint.... I guess. :(

Please weigh in with your thoughts or comments. Sorry for my really long rant.

[Mort Corey]

From the point of MP3 (which I don't even own a player...outside my computer anyway) I believe it's largely a matter of convenience. It's not that people don't care about the quality it's more the manner in which we've become a visually oriented society. Not many people spend much time, sitting in the sweet spot of a good audio system, and just listen to music. I think they're more likely to spin the platter and go about doing other things, either inside or out. In that respect, audio quality becomes secondary as nobody is really listening anyway....it's just background noise (and a lot of recent releases I consider less than that)

Now you and I might not care to own an item like the iPod or the like, but it is a marvel in engineering if nothing else. That you can move about in the world, and tune it out at the same time, seems to be something many people gravitate towards. Personally, I'd rather sit in the sweet spot :)

Mort

[annunaki]

I agree with you Mort. An I-pod is a good piece of engineering. A 40gb hard-drive in the palm of your hand is impressive. 10 years ago I would think you were nuts.

I too choose to sit in the sweet spot. :)

[WmAx]

I have a beef with Mp3. I hate it. People think that this compressed and limited form of audio sounds good :eek: .

You hate MP3. Okay.

Maybe it has to do with society. Society has allowed the infiltration of an inferior media format to basically take over cd. Cd was better than cassettes, cassettes were better than 8-track. We were moving in a positive direction until we got to mp3. Mp3 struggles to be slightly ahead of cassette in terms of fidelity and dynamic range. Why has this happened??

Where do you get this from? MP3 can be transparent in almost every circumstance of music playback, as compared to the CD data from which it was created, provided an high quality encoder is used at an adequate bitrate, per the many studies that have been produced in this regard, both on reference headphones in studio environments on reference monitors.


I think it is because society (at least in the US) has become complacent. Basically having a "it's good enough" attitude. Super Audio CD and DVD audio have basically flopped because people thought cd was "good enough".

Don't know for sure if it's flopped yet -- but you can be fair and place blame on the music companies, themselves, as well. One could ask what use are formats that are no where near as versatile as a standard CD, becuase of DRM restrictions used on them, such SACD and DVD-A implement?

The majority of Americans still have standard definition TV, why? You guessed it, it is "good enough".

Hmm. HDTV is not widespread, in comparison. The cable networks are very limited availability, no real media format or players are standard with HDTV, and it looks like the media companies want to(and if the current irrational FCC code stands, it will be in effect the middle of this year) even remove and or modify your traditional rights of time displacment recording at their will of such broadcasts. HDTVs are still quite expensive, to boot.

I would not have a problem with Mp3, IF (big if) it offered a SONIC ADVANTAGE to the current media standard.

MP3 is not a replacement for any media format, nor was it meant to be. It's a compression format, to efficienty transmit and store music data(portables, online sharing, etc.).

-Chris

[MDS]

Thank you WmAx for the voice of reason.

MP3 or like perceptual codecs are not inherently evil and although many people like to claim that they can easily hear the difference and wouldn't be caught dead using any of them, in reality the vast majority of said individuals wouldn't be able to reliably pick the mp3 from an uncompressed wave.

It's been shown time and time again (in proper double-blind tests) that a proper encoding at a sufficient bit-rate is in nearly all cases indistinguishable from the original. There are exceptions of course on some types of music, but its not like a wav or a cd sounds awesome and an mp3 is inferior by leaps and bounds. It is what it is and has its place.

[BMXTRIX]

WmAx - Great response

MP3 isn't about replacing anything. It is about portability and versatility. Solid state MP3 players are almost always aimed directly at people who are pretty hard on those players. For use while running, skiing, cycling, and exercising at the gym. They are extraordinarily lightweight and can hold many hours of music with long playback of that music.

Is it better quality than CD? Of course not, but nobody ever said it was. Does that make it worse than CD overall? Well, it depends on what you are using it for.

I have a digital audio server with all my music stored at 192kbs and good audio processing. I can sort over 10,000 songs by artist, title, genre, etc. I have complete access to my entire CD collection from any room in my home at the touch of a button. I can make party playlists that don't have pauses while discs change and don't take the time for me to burn a CD.

Is it what I will listen to when I want to listen to good music in my primary listening room? Of course not, that's why I have a DVD-A/SACD player. But, when I'm getting ready for work in the morning the speakers in my bathroom will sound only slightly worse with AM radio then they would with DVD-A, so how would I ever tell the difference with a good MP3?

It has it's place and that is something people should be aware of.

[nm2285]

BMXTRIX - which server do you use? You find 192 to be sufficient?

As for the MP3 thing, no one has mentioned the word FREE. Think about the original Napster, Kazaa, and now OurTunes to name a few services that, although illegal, were a free source of music. Think about all the high school and college kids that infected (and still infects). They (we) don't make any money to buy CDs and most don't make money or have interest in higher end audio.

I may be the only person I know who consistently buys CDs (although I've been buying LPs a lot recently due to price). I know only a few people who will even go out and buy 1 a month. I think MP3s brough with them a feeling of "good enough for the price." Afterall, who can argue with free?

I don't MP3's as much as I hate that 128 kbps has become an unofficial standard of coding for many people. I find 128 to be almost unlistenable. 192 is minimum for me. My guess on this is that when MP3s started, computer hifi wasn't all that popular yet so they were being played on lousy computer speakers and the difference wasn't AS obvious as it is now. ugh i hate 128...

[BMXTRIX]

I use an iMerge S1000 with a 40 GB hard drive. Very small by today's standards, so with as many CDs as I have on it, and want to be able to continue to put on it, 192 is as high as I will go.

I still really want to do a blind test encoding several pieces of music into various bit rates and then burning them back out to CD in wav format (CD) and play the songs that were encoded and the original and mix the playback together back-to-back. Nobody will know what is the original or which ones were encoded and how they were encoded. Then see what the results are. I would also like to repeat the same test with different speakers in different environments to see if quality differences can be noticed in less ideal circumstances.

I mean, good headphones in a quiet environment - you should notice MP3s flaws... Good theater setup - you'll notice the flaws... But in your kitchen, dining room, laundry room, and bathrooms.... with $200.00 in ceiling speakers run from a centrally distributed amp? Not sure how many can tell the difference. Or even care if they could.

Like my iMerge though - price was right ($0.00) but it is no AudioRequest.

[WmAx]

I mean, good headphones in a quiet environment - you should notice MP3s flaws...

Should, according to whom?

Actually, according to Hydrogen audio research, this is not likely except on ther rare problem sample or special test signal.

Personally, I can not identify in DBT(ABX protocol), the difference between CD data and 256kbps lame encoded MP3s on the music selections I have done the tests with so far, using extremely high quality headphones.

-Chris

[BMXTRIX]

:) Sorry - MAY notice

As I said, I would like to see some blind tests with different conditions and blind instant switching between audio formats. MP3s re-encoded to CD and mixed so the CD transport unit does NOT change and introduce hardware noise into the system.

[WmAx]

:) Sorry - MAY notice

As I said, I would like to see some blind tests with different conditions and blind instant switching between audio formats. MP3s re-encoded to CD and mixed so the CD transport unit does NOT change and introduce hardware noise into the system.

Well, actually, the method I used was to encode to MP3 with lame 3.96, then decode with Foobar back to wave format. I then checked the original and decoded wave in Cool Edit for time placment(sometimes it will be off, if so I will realign), then I compare the two wave files with Foobar's ABX comparator plug-in. It allows you to pick the specific start and end times in the files, and allows instant comparisons and on the fly repeats of a section, for the most sensative testing possible.

-Chris

[mustang_steve]

I think it's more a sign that the state of the majority of recordings out there are so lacking in dynamics and complexity, that after being molested by the MP3 ripping process, they still sound close to the original.

It may make you cry, but take britney spears (take it like a trooper, this is me making a point dagnabbit!) and rip it at 128kbps, and then do the same to mannheim steamroller. Now, which actually sounds truer to the source? I hate to say it but pop-crap seems to have been engineered around mp3 ripping.

Given we have other formats we can use, that all seem to work well with certain types of audio.

Oh, and also keep in mind the average stereo, and the average person's listening habits...usually parties, listening to music while doing other things, or grooving with it in the car...none of which I would think anyone would be in a position to critique the sound too much.

Fortunately, the boombox era is coming to a close, and we are in the middle of the shelf system era...and here we are a step closer to people demanding quality...pity is that the state of the average recording has gotten so bad that they might not know what is really good in 20 years. I see too many CDs without dynamics, that it's sickening.

Metallica's last album sounded like crap compared to a local san jose cali goth metal band, who mastered their cds IN THEIR BASEMENT, with low-end equipment.....it had it all, the dynamic range was on par with well recorded orchestral peices...yet they done it on a shoestring budget, while metallica had all teh moeny in the world to do it....really it's not MP3, it's the state of pop recordings. When CDs aren't even being used to their fullest, you can be sure that those people aren't going to gripe much about their MP3s being 5% distorted.

[rgriffin25]

I am an iPod owner and I love it. It is nice to carry it around in my pocket at school so I can listen to music whenever I want. For me it is the convenience of having so much in such a small space. When I buy "pop" music I use iTunes and play it back on the iPod. For my more critical listening I by the disc in which ever format its available in. It is really great for someone like my wife who wants the song and doesn't care if it is Hi-rez.
I really think another reason MP3 is so popular.. is that most artists only have 1 or 2 good songs on their album. Does anyone want to pay $15-18 for one song? Not me, I will accept a lower form of the original (.99cents on iTunes) to save money for HT upgrades and Hi-rez music.

I do agree that as a society most people are happy with mediocre. Its a shame to see fine arts programs and symphonies struggle financially. Then to see people like Britney Spears making millions...
:mad:

[Rob Babcock]

In defense of Annunaki, I don't know one single person outside of us forum whackos who give a rat's arse about JND or what bitrate is considered necessary to pass an ABX DBT vs RCBD. That's our world, not the "real world." Maybe things are changing, but I haven't been on many sites that give you an option to go as high as 256 mbps, and certainly not many sites that were outside your Top-40 mainstream. For that average Joe, at least the ones I know, MP3 is 128 kbps because "that's CD Quality, man!" That's what they've been told, and they don't care to know otherwise.

I don't want to put words in Annunaki's mouth, but I think he's decrying the general public's low standards more than MP3, per se. I know MP3 can sound okay, but honestly, most people don't care. They want to fit 1,000 songs on their pack-o'-gum sized mini. That won't happen at 360 kbps/VBR. And while there are a lot of audiophool labels operating now, the sound of your average pop release has probably never been worse in the stereo era. Compression is rampant, and many CDs are sound absolutely dreadful.

Many racers stick up for a basically absurd hobby by claiming that racing "improves the breed." That is, they supposedly race cars to make better street cars, by some trickle-down theory. By that logic, I'd like to see longer word lengths and higher sampling rates even if it serves no obvious and immediate purpose. Maybe not for all consumer media, but certainly in the tracking and mastering. And it would be nice if the consumer product had more than 5 dB dynamic range, while they're at it. The guys in the studio often seem to forget that radio stations have their own compression gear.

Sure, MP3 & the like will always have a place. And if you're half way knowledgeable and ripping your own CDs, you can get good sound. But I wish the mainstream philosophy was "let's see how technically good we can make this" instead of "how much can we shave away before it starts to sound like as$?" ;) I seriously doubt sound quality is driving the download market- it's convenience pure and simple.

[BMXTRIX]

Convenience at the cost of quality isn't really a good thing, but it has been pervasive in American, and many other societies for years. It is the very reason we have fast food and it does so well. We pay people to mow our lawns, deliver out paper, even our groceries. Convenience is a really big thing and if you lose some quality for that convenience, most people really don't care.

It doesn't mean that Ferrari type products won't still exist and be in demand... On the other hand, one of the worse products (reliability/quality) that I have ever seen was a Meridian system that went back to Meridian half a dozen times and they never could get it working correctly.

Good audio not only costs money, but requires a lot of care and dedication to extract every last note. I agree, that any recording artist and every producer should be dedicated enough to at least care that you have the highest quality master recordings possible, then put them together into a master recording of the album that gets scaled (way) down for CD and any other formats it is distributed on. DVD-A and SACD should be scaled down versions of the original, never the other way around.

But, Ferraris cost a lot of money, and not everyone can afford one, or even would dish out the cash and effort a Ferrari takes. Likewise, DVD-A and SACD are just to much a pain in the rear for most people to deal with. Not everyone, but definitely a lot more MP3 players on the market than SACD players. I can't imagine how many of those SACD players aren't even hooked up for SACD.

I'll take both thanks. I like my convenience and appreciate being able to put 10 hours of random songs on when I ride my bike. But, a good disc playing in my theater isn't going to originate from an MP3.

[mustang_steve]

exactly.

As far as racing improves the breed....as a bicycle racing nut, I hear that all the time about bikes, and it angers me to no end...that kind of thinking only hurts since racing has nothing to do with comfort or practicality.

I commute on a racing bike...and let me tell you, it's quite far from comfortable, or practical...keep in mind this is an $1800 bicycle, my chain alone is $60....and I have to put in about $600 a year in maintenance to keep it running smooth....the reason I d it is because I use my commute as a training run, on the way home, hitting 35mph is rather common, and since that is the flow of traffic on the road I ride on, the driver's like it since they don't see me as an obstruction....but for bicycles and comfort, touring improves the breed...but sadly nobody looks at touring bikes anymore, as they are left as relics, despite being possibly one of the best all-around bikes that one could buy....it's sad really.

As far as audio, I think it's just another by-product of our cheaper and faster lifestyle that seems to be the norm anymore. Everyone wants to be there so fast that they drive recklessly despite it taking the same amount of time, people who jump back and forth between three lines at a supermarket in vain to try to save 2 minutes, the person who buys malt liquor instead of good beer because it costs less.

Basically where my derailed train of thought was going is, that we as a people, just have a ahrd time to comprehend how a box with some speakers in it can cost so much, or why this black box with lights and knobs costs this much more than this other black box with more lights and knobs found at best buy. This has become the norm for the most part.

Best hting we can do is just have our own systems, and when our friends come over, maybe they will be tempted to go out and get a nice pair of speakers or something. Given they will probably be something like Athena bookshelf speakers, but it's a darn good start.....when the bar weighs as much as this one, it's not going to rise very fast.

However the fact that this shows up at the recording studio's end is beyond sad...you would think these people would be so passionate about sound that they would master it right...given "right" is a variable here, and I know it...but by "right" I mean make it so it has good dynamics, that the sounds are clear and articulate, not jsut loud and gritty, and maybe, just maybe end up with an album that's worth having me buy. I'm sick of not buying albums since 90% of them suck. I want to buy music, but whats out there is not music, it was at one point, but thanks to the guy at the mixer, is....something else.

[annunaki]

Mr. Babcock Thanks for your comments. That was more of what I was after with this thread.

Chris,

I am sure that Mp3 as a data compression format can sound good, IF it is done properly. The fact is, is that so many "Mp3's" that people use don't (sound good) but think it is "cd quality sound". I am sorry if my original post did not say "lossy perceptual codec = state of society". I generalized. :rolleyes: :) Thanks to you and Anonymous I now know there is a big difference in how things can be done. :) I may actually look into some downloaded music now, IF I can find some that is losslessly (is that a word?) encoded.



Mustang Steve,

I COMPLETELY AGREE with your last paragraph.


By the way, racing does improve the breed... if you drive a Ferrari. :D

[furrycute]

I don't like MP3's. But before the days of 3rd generation ipods, it was not possible to carrying around 80 CD's worth of wave files in the palm of my hand. And it is still not practical even with the 4th generation ipods, since the battery is drained very quickly when the harddrive has to be accessed constantly.

I could go the old fashioned way, carry a CD wallet with 80 CDs in it and a portable CD player on my trips. But I would rather not to, because of the bulk and weight.

So it's 256kb VBR mp3's for everyday listening.

I would love to get my hands on an 80gb flash memory based mp3/wave player running on 2 AA batteries, so I can copy all my CDs in wave format to the portable player, and can jump up and down without worrying about the harddrive dying on me. But looks like I will have to wait a couple of more years for my dream portable player.

I am all for high res formats. But one thing that really turns me off is the encryption. With CDs I can copy them into wave files whenever I feel like it. Impossible with SACDs and DVD audio discs, at least not yet. So pardon me if I am not inclined to carry an SACD player and 80 SACDs with me on my business trips.

[SQ Kid]

i use mp3 for the portability. my car audio setup plays mp3 cds, and its much easier to keep 12 discs encoded in high vbr (160 and up) then it is for me to carry around a binder of 100. plus its easy to make a party soundtrack from a computer (or xbox) hooked up to the reciever and just let it go for more hours than the night's got. like others have said, mp3 is not trying to beat cds or other technology, its just filling in a niche that has been vacant for a while.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

And if somebody breaks into your ride, its no big loss to lose 5 MP3 cd's, rather than 20 full albums at $15/each

[TEvo]

By the way, racing does improve the breed... if you drive a Ferrari. :D

To me, the whole audiophile and MP3 issue bring up the point of "good enough". Does the average consumer of Top 40/Pop/Hip-Hip/Rap care (know about?) about maximum detail retrieval, soundstaging, correct tonal balance and coherence?

This said, I guess there is a time and a place for everything. I have a iPod that I use virtually every day when I cannot listen at home. If I really want maximum fidelity from the player, I just use lossless encoding (Apple Lossless sounds remarkably decent even when compared to uncompressed AIFF and WAV).

I must strongly disagree about the non-audio related point... Racing has improved the breed. If you ride motorcycles. :cool:

[philh]

13 yo daughter plays the flute (quite well too). Can hear seperate instruments and minor flaws in performance. Can't tune a analog radio and accepts an incredible amount of distortion. 128, that's golden sound. I'm still chasing after a minor difference in my towers that has been driving me crazy for years. Nobody else can hear it :( Must be a state of mind!

[Clint DeBoer]

In my opinion, here are some things to remember:

- Average people don't seem to care about fidelity, just features
- MP3 offers advantages over CD in terms of space-saving and portability
- Average people don't care about fidelity
- With MP3 Surround coming shortly you can be sure to see even wider adoption of the format
- Average people don't care

Seriously, talk to your cousins or uncles about MP3s and sound quality. Chances are they don't really have an opinion and will likely not understand much of the issues involved since they are listening to their music in noisy rooms and with equipment that puts out more distortion than the MP3 format. These people may, however, understand that they can store over 100 songs on a CD - and to them, that is cool.

[mustang_steve]

I must strongly disagree about the non-audio related point... Racing has improved the breed. If you ride motorcycles. :cool:


Ah depends what kind of motorcycles...Racing hasn't improved the Choppers :p

My point there was kinda misworded, it was more or less racing improves upon racing, but the day-to-day is based more on just common sense design rather than racing designs. I have yet to see an old man enjoy a Ducati as much as a Harley. ;)

[TEvo]

I understood the context. Couldn't resist the bait. :)

Reality TV shows improves the chopper. ;)

It depends on the particular old man I guess. I met a gentleman in his 60's at a trackday some time ago- his two bikes were an RC-51 and CBR954RR. And the gent was bloody fast. Noted moto journalist (Cycle World) Peter Eagan still has a 900SS.

I guess some people have a thing for single digit watt tube amps. Others like multi-hundred watt solid state.
[obligatory audio related content]

We now return the thread to the regularly scheduled debate about MP3's and whether the format is the dogs bollocks or cow pat.

[miklorsmith]

The main thing is convenience. The second most important thing is ease of use. Third? Features. Making melody is in there, but that's just a yes-or-no question, right?

Quick story - Just had a weekend trip, many people. I brought my new "travel system", comprising homebrew speakers, small amp, and a discman. People were interested in the setup because I hyped it quite a bit. The reason is that it sounds better than all of their stereos, all of which I have spent at least some time with and cost much more. The total cost of the system is $800 for source, amp, and speakers.

Everyone was very impressed, though not enough to inquire further. To me, it is a revelation that such sound can be so cheap. My friends will be perfectly happy to go back to their systems and probably won't think twice.

Lesson? We're in the vast minority. Don't yell too loud, lest we be discovered. ;)

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

MP3's 'good enough'? For 99% of the population 'mono' sounds 'good enough'. 99% of the populace also turns the 'Bass' & 'Treble' knobs all the way to the right 100% of the time (or they make a "smiley" if using an all-in-one stereo with a 10-band equilizer), Thus they don't even care for CD quality sound, since most people can't even set-up a shelf system properly.

99% of the population also think broadcast TV looks "good enough". Remember the great 'No RF output on DVD player' fiasco of 2001? Thats because A: It took Joe 6-pack 5 years to get a DVD player, and B: Joe 6-pack doesn't know/care that RF connections are even worse than composite RCA, and don't even know what S-video is. Don't even try to explain Tint & Brightness controls to Joe 6-pack.

You think Hi-Res audio and High-Def video disks are the future? I'm telling you not to hold your breath. The mass market won't upgrade until you offer them no choice. Don't believe me? Its 2005 and people are still content to have casette players in their cars.

[annunaki]

Rock& Roll Ninja,

Your statements are well taken. This is what I was after. There was a time when society demanded better quality. Now it seems quantity and convenience are more important. ("It is cheap, when it breaks I'll get a new one").

I guess I could have used something else in place of Mp3 in the title, however it seemed fitting. Hopefully Hi-Res audio and Hi-Def video will prove to be standards of the future by enthusiasts driving the market. Something is telling me though that it may not happen. If we continue to show that there is a need for it hopefully it continues.

[miklorsmith]

My last post didn't come across as smarty-pants as I intended. I completely agree that quality is #1. I have more components than features.

It is somewhat ironic that while technology in materials, manufacturing, and circuitry are revolutionizing playback at an unprecedented rate, the source material is steadfast. Hi-rez isn't taking off, despite attempts by equipment manufacturers and meager music industry efforts. I doubt we'll ever be able to get all we want in high-resolution.

However, I don't see CD's disappearing, at least until full hard-drive systems take over. The XRCD series from JVC is reported to be quite excellent, and is red book compatible. The cost is high though. HDCD is a great idea, and was flourishing until Microsopht bought it and let it go in the tank. Mark Knopfler still records in HDCD, and his stuff is the best recorded music I own. Aside - his last disc "Shangri-La" is my pick for album of the year.

It IS surprising the recording engineers and/or the companies they work for don't do a better job. Maybe MTV is more emblematic than MP3.

There are more places to go, even within the redbook standard. Technology could continue to push the science and art, if only the population cared what their music sounded like. The brutal truth is that they don't and won't. We have to make our own way and hope there are enough of us to keep good, no, great sound possible to the few of us still yelling in the wind.

[onethought]

I have recently re-discovered MP3s!! They can sound good with really good soundcard(like e-mu or Delta) and lot of processor power(). If the MP3 is decoded using foobar ot mpg123 (now costong £200) then you can get near bit perfect reproduction. If you use sound card with balanced out then your mp3 collection wont go waste. It wont beat a CD player with low jitter. It still wont beat LP with MC cartridge. but still you can have the satisfaction of getting the best out of your mp3. Please believe me when I say that a 220k bit rate sounds almost perfect and I honestly feel that when I started using best available drivers it got as good as CD.

But Still I feel CDs with external clock can give very precise detailed sound in heavy passages as opposed to MP3. MP3 heavily depend on the audio drivers and processor. But then if time and lots of ££ is at your disposal to invest in a gyro LP player then nothing like the extenstion afforded by vinyl to the upper end and details in the music. MP3s lack that. MP3 is a good way to review the recording and the music in general before you invest time and money on LPs or CDs. If the MP3 is encoded properly and played back using best possible decoder and drivers then I tell you truly... it gives LP and CDs a run for their money.
regards,
Dee

[Sheep]

Yes, I beleive you have beef with the people, rather then the file. I also don't like low quality Mp3's but that doesn't mean I hate all of them. 256kbps, can't hear a difference.

Clint hit the nail on the head.

SheepStar

[10010011]

Cd was better than cassettes, cassettes were better than 8-track. We were moving in a positive direction until we got to mp3.


In reality 8-track had better sound quality than cassette because the tracks were wider and the tape moved at a higher speed.

Consumers chose better portability (smaller size cassette) over better sound quality for mobile devices, MP3 is just the electronic version of that.

[r0t0man]

To the original thread starter, yes I do agree with your point on audio fidelity. I don’t think most consumers care or hear the difference with high quality audio.

However, one only needs to look back to the start of the digital audio revolution that started with the CD to understand the dilemma faced today with consumers and digital entertainment. Right now IMO the choices for high fidelity audio formats (for lack of a better word) suck. SACD/DVD-A is nice and sound excellent but so what. What features do they provide the consumer with other than superior sound? Seems like these new formats take us right back to the age of when CDs first hit the market in terms of risky new expensive equipment and few software choices. Both formats are not “portable” (unless anyone wants to go back to portable mechanical SACD/DVD-A players) and are so DRM laden that you can pretty much pitch them in the “nice try guys” bin of technology. It’s a case of “What product do I pick and when/where can I use it?” which is a big step back from the flexibility I have with CD and digital compressed formats.

These formats have not had time to mature like CD audio has and probably never will. I am pretty certain they will remain an audiophile niche product for the foreseeable future. I think this is a fine example of how the recording industry’s paranoia about what consumers do with their music as killed 2 new audio formats before they had a chance. How good it sounds and looks is not a definitive selling point to consumers and it never was.

That said, I am happy that digital storage is starting to get smaller, cheaper and grow in capacity. Now I can rip all my CDs to lossless formats such as FLAC and APE while still conserving a bit of space and maintain the original fidelity of the source. Not to mention I can play them in my car, my computer, portable music device, etc, etc. Unfortunately we will never see this with SACD and DVD-A which makes me sad and happy at the same time.

So IMO unless we can get a unified format that doesn’t suck and lets the consumer have listening freedom then Compact Discs and MP3s it is.

btw, I have been lurking here for a while and decided to join.
Howdy to all.

[annunaki]

Upon reading this stuff again, I have a few things to add. Since someone brought this thread back to life.

My problems are not so much with the compression, it is how it is done. It is so lossy. I would not mind a lossless compression scheme. In fact, I have pondered the purchase of an I-pod. It would be nice to record/playback my music in a lossless fashion, yet saving much space and making my collection of music portable. I am still not into downloading any compressed formats though.

I still have a problem with recording companies and producers ruining music at it's source though. I have to admit, I do not get into much "new" music as it sounds like crap. Compressed, little to no dynamic range, ect. This trend is one that I believe was partially brought on by Mp3. With people accepting a lower quality standard of recorded music, recording labels have slacked on their part as well.

To me, this was no excuse to go with a lower quality recording. Or, not taking the proper measures to ensure a high quality, dynamic reproduction. This is one thing that can change. If the "life" is brought back into recordings, digital music could take off like never before. assuming the storage space and lossless comression techniquise are apt to handle it.:)

[WHALER]

I do not have an iPOD but plan on buying one and my 4306 can display playlists and video from it. Sound should be decent because I have quality components. I am older guy and hope I do not get discouraged learning this stuff.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I do not have an iPOD but plan on buying one and my 4306 can display playlists and video from it. Sound should be decent because I have quality components.

After you get your iPod and iTunes (which you'll need to work the iPod, but its free), just set your import to 196 or higher and you'll be good to go.