What are the causes of "The Dumbing Down of Audio"?

bandphan

bandphan

Banned
I don't think it matters what type of music you listen to, as long as you're listening and appreciating music.
im not really knocking a generations muisc,but you have to agree that untill the early 80's that music that had been played on radio was music. The industry now forces over engineered ashley simpson, paris hilton, 50cent yada yada yada at us and thats not music by my ideals, not that there isnt some talent involved, but when it comes to the audiophile side of what is accurate reproduction of that type of music. That holds true for the elvis's, and the duran duran's also, if you noticed in my post my musical references were not the "kiss"'s of my genereation, but bluegrass, jazz, rb, ect, vocal and accoustic driven music and that was my point;).
 
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
The top 40 today is impossible to listen to. there is nothing musical about it - you cannot be a music lover and listen to that ...but then agreed to each his own.



A lot of the ipod people are mostly snobbish morons with a lot of money -- now of course the ipods are a bit cheaper but there are even better alternatives. There is nothing complex about "another" mp3 player. I have yet to see a "complex" mp3 player.
Cassette walkmans had a bass boost button which normally gave the sound a richer and fuller. Any idiot was able to operate that . Most good mp3 players have similar functionality except Ipod which has very little bass (with or without equalizer). No need to fiddle too much with equalizer just turn up the bass.

I want to listen to music when on road too , and the ipod gives too weak a sound when I am in subway ..my little iriver is a lot better for me. Most of the poorer people in subway actually have other mp3 players. Everyone knows ipod is a status symbol. or fashion statement for idiots whichever way you look at it.

I am sure there are lots of ipod people who just didnt know better but the point is the ipod people are sheep like . Victims of predator marketing strategy.
It's easy to jump in on the ipod hate wagon but let's not forget that the file format you use to encode your music and your choice of headphones both make a much bigger effect than the electronics do.

I have mp3 players(two ipods) for convenience on the go, not for critical listening.
 
aberkowitz

aberkowitz

Audioholic Field Marshall
im not really knocking a generations muisc,but you have to agree that untill the early 80's that music that had been played on radio was music. The industry now forces over engineered ashley simpson, paris hilton, 50cent yada yada yada at us and thats not music by my ideals, not that there isnt some talent involved, but when it comes to the audiophile side of what is accurate reproduction of that type of music. That holds true for the elvis's, and the duran duran's also, if you noticed in my post my musical references were not the "kiss"'s of my genereation, but bluegrass, jazz, rb, ect, vocal and accoustic driven music and that was my point;).
Since I'm only turning 29 this summer, I really cannot speak very intelligently on exactly what was on the radio prior to the mid-80s, although I will agree that the period of the late 70s/early 80s did not exactly produce the greatest music in history. I don't listen to radio much anymore, mainly b/c I don't have a car in NYC, but there's certainly much more out there than just top 40 on the radio- I think you just have to be willing to look.

My biggest annoyance is when we start bashing the mainstream public for the things that they enjoy. Just because most of us on the this board don't like top 40, doesn't mean that the people who do are inferior to us. There's a reason the music is popular.

Btw- your tastes are very much in-line with mine.:)
 
pzaur

pzaur

Audioholic Samurai
Jostenmeat - don't worry about the slap. It's reserved for people who spend tens of thousands on speakers and brag about it because they can. Not for people setting a budget...

The iPod is truly a convenience item. Different compression levels create differing amount of artifacting in the sound. It's all about what your personal tolerance level is. For those knocking the iPod you're barking in the wrong area. You should be knocking the bit rate the iPod is carrying.

Alas, it's all personal choice...I choose to be anal!

-pat
 
Z

zony

Banned
Its the electronics..

Jostenmeat - don't worry about the slap. It's reserved for people who spend tens of thousands on speakers and brag about it because they can. Not for people setting a budget...

The iPod is truly a convenience item. Different compression levels create differing amount of artifacting in the sound. It's all about what your personal tolerance level is. For those knocking the iPod you're barking in the wrong area. You should be knocking the bit rate the iPod is carrying.

Alas, it's all personal choice...I choose to be anal!

-pat
NOPE! You can use 128 mp3 - its the same crappy problem with the ipod _ NO BASS! I have a fairly decent sony md321 headphone not the greatest but better than ipod stock> i stuck that in the ipod and I was blown away by how BAD it sounded! Same exact mp3 file too. I tried it with no equalizer but thats not how I listen anyway esp with the old AA powered iriver i own. My tiny OLD iriver junk puts out a much fuller sound than this great ipod thing. No matter how much i fiddle with ipod equalizer settings never can get as much deep bass coming out from itt. I have heard some say that the old ipod shuffle had much better bass but I have never tested it.

I am no audiophile by any means and even the friend who owned the ipod agreed though he seems to be in awe of the stupid click wheel and hated my iriver navigation.

Also check out the CNET reviews of most mp3 players. Because they are ipod fanboys they are always blown away by sound quality of iriver, Cowan, Toshiba and Sony.

bIT RATE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! We are comparing the same EXACT file played on the players. Its the headphones and electronics that are the most important not the frigging bit rate! I can encode lossless for ipod and it still wont sound good.



That being said - I will agree 100% that many early mp3 players did have inferior navigation to ipod. My old irver actually sucks with its controls. The new Sony S 610 and A810, 829 are vastly superior players to ipod now and have good navigation too.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
I can encode lossless for ipod and it still wont sound good.
Have you? That would be a better test than crappy 128bit MP3.

Looking around, it's hard to get real data on this - but at least some people say the iPod had a hard time driving headphones - so if the headphones are moderate or higher impedance, the bass would likely suffer.

I doubt the iPod has noticeably poor SQ per se...but it may well have problems driving some headphones.
 
Last edited:
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
NOPE! You can use 128 mp3 - its the same crappy problem with the ipod _ NO BASS! I have a fairly decent sony md321 headphone not the greatest but better than ipod stock> i stuck that in the ipod and I was blown away by how BAD it sounded! Same exact mp3 file too. I tried it with no equalizer but thats not how I listen anyway esp with the old AA powered iriver i own. My tiny OLD iriver junk puts out a much fuller sound than this great ipod thing. No matter how much i fiddle with ipod equalizer settings never can get as much deep bass coming out from itt. I have heard some say that the old ipod shuffle had much better bass but I have never tested it.

I am no audiophile by any means and even the friend who owned the ipod agreed though he seems to be in awe of the stupid click wheel and hated my iriver navigation.

Also check out the CNET reviews of most mp3 players. Because they are ipod fanboys they are always blown away by sound quality of iriver, Cowan, Toshiba and Sony.

bIT RATE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! We are comparing the same EXACT file played on the players. Its the headphones and electronics that are the most important not the frigging bit rate! I can encode lossless for ipod and it still wont sound good.



That being said - I will agree 100% that many early mp3 players did have inferior navigation to ipod. My old irver actually sucks with its controls. The new Sony S 610 and A810, 829 are vastly superior players to ipod now and have good navigation too.

128 mp3= Crap in is Crap out.

You have to leave the EQ in the "off" setting, it's pretty well know that it is substandard. To each there own I guess but my MDR-V6's put out plenty of bass with my I-touch and 256kbps recordings.

Continue on with the ipod bashing and your sweeping generalizations of the people that own them.:rolleyes:
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
I have a fairly decent sony md321 headphone
Are you sure this is right? A google search doesn't show that this model number exists. "Sony md321" brings up...your post, and nothing else on the internet.

I was going to look up the specs for these, but no go.
 
Z

zony

Banned
128 mp3= Crap in is Crap out.

You have to leave the EQ in the "off" setting, it's pretty well know that it is substandard. To each there own I guess but my MDR-V6's put out plenty of bass with my I-touch and 256kbps recordings.

Continue on with the ipod bashing and your sweeping generalizations of the people that own them.:rolleyes:
The fact that you rolleyes shows how superficial and inane you are ..

ANd you have not compared it to other mp3 players?
By the way this eq off thing is pretty stupid. Its very difficult to listen to most new music with eq or tonal controls off even with good equipment. Most new cds are way too bright sounding .

I have even stuck a lossless file into ipod and compared it to my irver with same headphone MDR 21 LP by the way. and the ipod powers it quite well.

BY THE WAY - I dont buy frigging $100 headphones just something better than the stock headphones. This is average listening test not audiophile test.



And even a mp3 version of that file sounds better ..

I guess you just want to defend the itouch - incidentally already confirmed to be the WORST SOUNDING IPOD of all!

Dont believe me - why does every single review of the new Sony mp3 players, Irver, Cowon all sing praise to sound quality? If all that matters is the file and headphones shouldnt they all sound same as ipod?

The emperor has no clothes! The ipod inferiority has been revealed time and time again - yet people keep defending this inferior sounding player.

I dare anyone to try the same file in a irver clix, or new sony walkman and cowan . And play around with the eq as well. That the way most people listen to players. Esp when there is outside noise like subway etc you have to increase the bass to compensate. No one listens to these players in their quiet bedroom. You can play any home stereo at home .

A good mp3 player must give user ability to play with the tone. Comparing with eq off does not prove much esp if you are in quiet location.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Since I'm only turning 29 this summer, I really cannot speak very intelligently on exactly what was on the radio prior to the mid-80s, although I will agree that the period of the late 70s/early 80s did not exactly produce the greatest music in history. I don't listen to radio much anymore, mainly b/c I don't have a car in NYC, but there's certainly much more out there than just top 40 on the radio- I think you just have to be willing to look.

In New York City, you undoubtedly have a better than average selection of radio stations. If you ever get a chance to do so, it would be instructive for you to drive across the country. I have done this a couple of times, and there are some places where you will be lucky to get two FM radio stations. Typically, they will either both be country stations, or they will be Christian radio. That is when I am glad I have other options in the car, like playing CDs, or just listening to the sound of the engine and the tires on the pavement.

Still, your point about looking for good stations is an excellent suggestion. Some people complain about their area, when there is a station or two that they might actually like, if only they would take the trouble to search for it. The thing is, of course, that one is unlikely to like absolutely everything that is broadcast on any station, so one might reject a station based on trying it once, when they happen to be playing something the person does not like. So it is a good idea to try this on several occasions on different days before giving up completely on the idea, and then, of course, stations sometimes come and go, or change format, in which case one will have a new opportunity to find something one likes.


My biggest annoyance is when we start bashing the mainstream public for the things that they enjoy. Just because most of us on the this board don't like top 40, doesn't mean that the people who do are inferior to us. There's a reason the music is popular.

Btw- your tastes are very much in-line with mine.:)
One of the funny things about people looking down on those who listen to top 40 music is that many of them also listen to top 40 music—just from a different era.

The reason that top 40 music is top 40 music is that it is easy for people to like it, and requires nothing from the listener. To keep from offending anyone, I will use an example of classical music (broadly speaking; snooty types call this "European art music" or "western art music"; see this for what I mean, not this.). If I compare Beethoven and Bach, with Beethoven, he reaches out and grabs the audience, so it is easier to get into him. With Bach, he is more reserved, and so the listener typically needs to pay more attention to get into it. I originally got into classical music primarily via Beethoven, who was my favorite composer for many years, but now Bach is my favorite. Both, of course, are truly great, and, in my opinion, are among the three greatest composers of all time (the other of the three being Mozart, of course).

In the case of rock (in pretty much all types; see this for what I mean, and notice the subgenres), there is a primitive aspect to it that makes it easy for people to get into. The most basic part of music is the beat, and with rock, there is no trouble finding the beat. With classical music, the beat has been refined away from prominence; pre-classical music is similar to classical music, but more primitive, and with a prominent beat (just look for "early" music in the "classical" section of a good CD/record store to find what I mean, or do an on line search).

For the benefit of those who do not know what the word "primitive" means, it is not a synonym for "bad"; just look it up in a dictionary.

My taste in music has become more refined and complex than my taste was as a child, and likewise, my taste in food has become more complex and refined. I still, of course, enjoy some of the things I did as a child, but I generally prefer things that are more substantial these days. They tend to be satisfying for a longer period of time—I mean this for both food and for music. For an example of something that I can play over and over, and never get tired of hearing, try this. It has sufficient complexity that I do not find it boring to hear repeatedly, yet it is accessible enough to not require concentration. It is sublime. And Lamon does a great job with it. I suggest trying it out on a Sunday morning, while relaxing with a cup of coffee and reading the paper, or whatever equivalent situation you may prefer.
 

Attachments

zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
. Because they are ipod fanboys
For someone whose first post here stated that "I doubt you would ever find a better speaker than this", referring to an $100 pair of Sony bookshelf speakers, you may want to refrain from tossing the "fanboy" epithet around, Zony.
 
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
The fact is, I really could care less but your little tirade has about ran it's course here.

My last suggestion for you is maybe you need to try an in-ear monitor for better outside noise reduction while on the subway. Having to turn up the volume and/or bass probably means your not getting good sound isolation.
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
A good mp3 player must give user ability to play with the tone. Comparing with eq off does not prove much esp if you are in quiet location.
I dont agree with that. I want a player that needs no tonal adjustment.

http://www.tascam.com/products/dr-1;9,12,3594,16.html @299 This will be replacing my sony tcd100 dat for on the go recording and casual listening. I think matts dead on, most of us do not consider MP3s as our choice for critical listening;)
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
I dont agree with that. I want a player that needs no tonal adjustment.

I think matts dead on, most of us do not consider MP3s as our choice for critical listening;)
Yes you are right about that but why can't you achieve convience and get the highest sound quality as possible through these players. All I think zony is saying is he thinks there are better MP3 players than I-pod.
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
Yes you are right about that but why can't you achieve convience and get the highest sound quality as possible through these players. All I think zony is saying is he thinks there are better MP3 players than I-pod.
agreed, mo was for critical listening.
 
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
All I think zony is saying is he thinks there are better MP3 players than I-pod.
I have no problem agreeing with this. He just could have went about saying it in a better fashion........or with some factual data, I'd at least have something to reference besides his gibberish.:p

bettA lot of the ipod people are mostly snobbish morons with a lot of money
Everyone knows ipod is a status symbol. or fashion statement for idiots whichever way you look at it.
I am sure there are lots of ipod people who just didnt know better but the point is the ipod people are sheep like .
 
Z

zony

Banned
For someone whose first post here stated that "I doubt you would ever find a better speaker than this", referring to an $100 pair of Sony bookshelf speakers, you may want to refrain from tossing the "fanboy" epithet around, Zony.
ahem - thats because they sound good compared to speakers 2-3 times their price. Of couse a pair of 1000 speakers may sound better. Trust me no one cares about sony - how many fanboys of sony exist? Ipods have the most fanboys by far.

So people hear are telling me I must get a studio quality (=very expensive) headphone so that my ipod MIGHT sound on par with other mp3 players that sound better by far with my ordinary headphones (not to mention the other mp3 players cost $ 20 cheaper at least! )

I can't believe why this defense of the ipod -
I can understand people who just go in a store buy the thing just for the hell of it - but this stubborn refusal to believe that others sound better just makes no sense.
 
Z

zony

Banned
I have no problem agreeing with this. He just could have went about saying it in a better fashion........or with some factual data, I'd at least have something to reference besides his gibberish.:p
YOu can look up factual data all you want. The bottom line is listen for your self.

The reference to sheep - Great marketing ploy by Scandisk to go after ipod - are you not aware of their original site when they called ipod users sheep.

I am just sick of people posting back to get better headphones and use higher bitrate mp3 when its quite clear the same file sounds a lot better in other players.

Most people are sheep anyway - cant blame Apple for taking advantage of them!!
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top