I have a beef with Mp3. I hate it. People think that this compressed and limited form of audio sounds good .
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.
__________________
Do you Believe the Truth or Seek it.
Annunaki
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
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.
__________________
Do you Believe the Truth or Seek it.
Annunaki
I have a beef with Mp3. I hate it. People think that this compressed and limited form of audio sounds good .
You hate MP3. Okay.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
__________________ Dedicated to improving the real[quantifiable] parameters of sound reproduction.
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.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to BMXTRIX For This Useful Post:
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...
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.
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
__________________ Dedicated to improving the real[quantifiable] parameters of sound reproduction.
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.
Mp3 = State of Society??
.
Linear Mode
