Editorial on MP3 Threat to High-End Audio
John Sunier
Harry Lavo
news:doue6...@news4.newsguy.com...
> http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910
I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to pissing into the wind.
Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.
David E. Bath
I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.
--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator
Steven Sullivan
Agreed. It has nothing to do with the supposed 'sterility' of CD --
that's just Harry on his hobbyhorse, and I guess he's utterly forgotten
the Sony Walkman -- it's *all*
about being *able* to have music all the time. And of course we also
have to note the introduction of Muzak to public spaces...dating
back the 50's perhaps? Music that isn't *meant* to be listened to
attentively.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
bob
Oh, come on. It started not long after the Victrola replaced the piano
in the parlor. That's when background music became possible, and it's
been with us ever since. To ascribe this phenomenon to digital is just
trolling.
bob
Jenn
The great John Philip Sousa may have had it right even earlier. He
stated that the earliest recordings would be the death of concert music
as audiences would get lazy over time.
> I use MP3 for the portability feature
> when I travel, but never for home use.
Same here.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>In article <dp1ee...@news1.newsguy.com>,
However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Harry Lavo
news:dp1ks...@news2.newsguy.com...
There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
seem to negatively affect home listening? In fact, one can argue that they
actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
listening space that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.
But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?
stealthaxe
news:dp3si...@news1.newsguy.com:
> However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
> iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
> quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
> cannot distinguish from the original.
"no loss of quality"?
perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.
--
stealthaxe
fogdog
David E. Bath
On second thought it started even earlier with the introduction of
changer devices such as the 45 changers and then the LP changers. It's
that capability that allowed one to queue up a lot of music and then
let it run as background entertainment. CD changers then continued
that capability. I don't think it becomes background until one can set
it up and forget about it for a significant time period.
bob
> Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.
Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)
bob
Steven Sullivan
firswt, who says you have use an ipod to play mp3s?
second, IIRC Stereophile favorably reviewed the ipod's sound quality
a little while back.
Keith Hughes
> "David E. Bath" <david...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
<snip?
>>I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
>>portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
>>then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
>>MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
>>when I travel, but never for home use.
>>
You forgot the even more miserable 4-track cartridge that preceded the
8-track. Horrible.
> There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
> many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
> laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
> 8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
> seem to negatively affect home listening?
Primarily, I think, because there were no rapid cultural changes
associated with the majority of the music listeners contemporaneous to
these technological changes. They (we) just had more options available
to do what we were already doing, listening to music. There also was a
very limited amount of competing entertainment, especially video based,
in comparison to the last couple of decades.
> In fact, one can argue that they
> actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
> and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
> listening space that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
> walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.
Well, while the quality of the "reproduction" is certainly not as good
in the car, or the Walkman, the quality of the "music" is unchanged. I
think this just highlights that enjoyment of the music does not
correlate well with the quality of the reproduction. Certainly not
outside of the audiophile realm - a realm that is clearly shrinking IME.
> But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
> their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
> using it as "background".
Well Harry, I don't think you can tie the change to "digital". I, for
one, listen more with digital, simply because I now can. Traveling 25
days a month is *not* conducive to vinylphilia...
As to background music, you seem to presuppose that this is necessarily
a "bad" thing. It's not what *we* do, but it still supports the music
industry, and gives artists a chance to make a living. With the
competing visual media (HT, cable, DVD, etc.) these days, I don't think
there will be many, if any, new generations of audiophiles.
> This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
> I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural?
Yes, IMO. The cultural adaptation both to new technologies, and to new
forms of entertainment.
> Or could
> there be a subtle cause and effect?
>
I would say absolutely not, relative to digital being your culprit. Do
you really believe that if we still *only* had vinyl for music, and
still had DVD's, video games, etc., etc., for visual entertainment, that
*more* people would be listening seriously to music than do so now?
Given that A.D.D. seems almost to be a merit badge in American society
today, that seems incredibly unlikely to me.
Keith Hughes
bob
> There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
> many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
> laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
> 8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
> seem to negatively affect home listening? In fact, one can argue that they
> actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
> and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
> listening space
Yeah, maybe when you're parked.
> that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
> walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.
>
> But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
> their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
> using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
> I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
> there be a subtle cause and effect?
Or could you just be making this stuff up? I see no reason to believe
that people suddenly stopped listening seriously to recorded music
20-odd years ago. All I see is a guy who wants to pick the same old
digital/analog fight yet again. Your sociology is as bad as your
psychoacoustics, Harry. Please give it up.
bob
jwvm
Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
be?
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
Actually, I'm very hard pushed to differentiate it from an original CD
on my main music rig, and that seems to be a common consensus.
What makes you think that it *should* sound inferior?
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
>> iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
>> quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
>> cannot distinguish from the original.
>>
>Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.
Yes, pretty obviously, given my post.............................
chung
>
> But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
> their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
> using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
> I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
> there be a subtle cause and effect?
>
You have to be joking, Mr. Lavo. I have three kids, and they all listen
to music at least 4 hours a day. No, not on vinyl, but on iPods. If
anything, the advent of the portable MP3 players makes it much easier
for younger people to "listen" to music, anytime, any place. Each of my
kids has a music library that is easily an order of magnitude larger in
size than what I had when I was at their age. And they do not use that
library as only background music, but every bit as attentively as when I
listened to my vinyl when I was at their age. You go to any college in
the US, and you see the same phenomenon: young people with sizable music
collections and actively listening to them. You think iPods were sold
mostly to people who use it as background music only?
fogdog
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.
Nick Sun
Nothing but just music? :-)
Steven Sullivan
But they do play Apple Lossless.
Codifus
that ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s can
sound good?
Just like all audio, there's good and bad in everything. Some people are
happy with their walmart $40 CD player, and others need the Benchmark
DAC coupled with some exotic transport. Hoards of people own a technics
turntable, but the "real" audiophiles own a Rega, or Linn, or whatnot.
It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney
Spears crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s
available over the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try
and give a listen to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer.
MP3 can sound very very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy
codecs which arguably do a very good job of "preserving" the highest
quality audio, like OGG and Apple's AAC.
CD
Stewart Pinkerton
Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)
BTW, Apple has its own lossless encoder.
Bob McDonald
Fraunhoffer. I have been looking for these for a long time. Maybe they are
not available here in Canada.
"Codifus" <cod...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dpbk0...@news3.newsguy.com...
Jenn
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2006 19:28:10 GMT, fogdog <barnar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >bob wrote:
> >> fogdog wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.
> >>
> >>
> >> Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
> >> dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
> >> tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)
> >>
> >> bob
> >There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
> >iPod's do not play flacs and shns.
>
> Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)
LOL
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)
David E. Bath
I'm going through the same experimentation with encoders and encoding
rates myself. So far I'm quite happy with the LAME encoder set for VBR
standard. VBR (variable bit rate) encoding is superior to any fixed
rate that I've tried so far. I've been unable to tell any difference
between the original WAV file and the MP3 via headphones on my
computer. 128 Kbps fixed is noticeably different from the WAV in the
same setup. The resulting VBR files are about 20-25% larger than the
128 Kbps files.
bob
> I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
> the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
> wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
> on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
> amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
> since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
> kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
> I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
> fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
> hour :-)
It's hard to imagine filling a 30- or 60-gig iPod with 128kbps content.
You'll be ripping disks for a year! (And how many minutes of class will
you waste scrolling through all of it to find what you're looking for?)
I usually recommend ripping at 192 kbps as a good compromise between
resolution and file size. Of course, that won't work if youreally need
to cram 400 CDs onto a 30-gig drive. In which case, I have any even
better solution: You need TWO iPods--one for the class, and one for
you!
bob
Codifus
LAME to make some very nice 320 kbps MP3s. Of course, why you want to do
that for a Britney CD is another matter for discussion;)
CD
stealthaxe
@news2.newsguy.com:
> Actually, I'm very hard pushed to differentiate it from an original CD
> on my main music rig, and that seems to be a common consensus.
ok, now i'm confused.
your main music rig is an iPod?
> What makes you think that it *should* sound inferior?
i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound inferior,
at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or any mp3 players.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
news:dp7go...@news3.newsguy.com:
> stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:dp3si...@news1.newsguy.com:
>> > However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My
>> > 60GB iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no
>> > loss of quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I
>> > personally cannot distinguish from the original.
>> "no loss of quality"?
>> perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
>> equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the
>> iPod rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an
>> upgrade @ home.
> firswt, who says you have use an ipod to play mp3s?
he stated "My 60GB iPod..." in his text. i was responding to the context.
> second, IIRC Stereophile favorably reviewed the ipod's sound quality
> a little while back.
perhaps compared to other similar types of devices, but for me they're
pretty mediocre.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
> Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
> be?
have you listened to an iPod? critically?
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
news:dpbk0...@news3.newsguy.com:
> stealthaxe wrote:
>> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:dp3si...@news1.newsguy.com:
>>>However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My
>>>60GB iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no
>>>loss of quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I
>>>personally cannot distinguish from the original.
>> "no loss of quality"?
>> perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
>> equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the
>> iPod rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an
>> upgrade @ home.
> Because it's an MP3 you atuomatically assume its totally inferior. Is
> that ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s
> can
> sound good?
interesting that you throw words around like ignorance. what reason
would you have to believe that i've never tried out mp3s? or iPods?
i have a large collection of mp3's, ripped from my collection, which i
listen to on the road when working.
i find that the sound quality i get from my laptop is superior to these
portable sound devices including the iPod.
> It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney
> Spears crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s
> available over the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try
> and give a listen to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer.
I have a copy of lame, and i encode using VBR on nearly the highest
settings.
> MP3 can sound very very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy
> codecs which arguably do a very good job of "preserving" the highest
> quality audio, like OGG and Apple's AAC.
OGG Vorbis was pretty interesting to me for a while. Arguably, high res
mp3 files are a considerable improvement over the 96 k/sec crap you find
here and there, but in the end i'm interested in finding better formats
and higher quality and not the other way around. I find "really good" is
not quite the same as "no loss of quality" which is the phrase i took
issue with.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
> Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
> dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
> tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)
i'm sorry, were we talking about lossless compression?
--
stealthaxe
Serge Auckland
news:doue6...@news4.newsguy.com...
> http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910
Whilst agreeing with the sentiments, there is one glaring errors in the
text, which will detract from the value of the message.
MP3 files do not offer 1/30th of the sample rate of CD. They are sampled at
the same rate, or even a little higher at 48kHz. DATA rate is lower (not
sample rate), but not 1/30th. An MP3 at 128kBs is approximately 11:1 data
reduced, not 30:1.
Nevertheless, it is true that right up until a few years ago, audio
reproduction was ever upwards in quality. Microgroove LPs replaced 78s, and
CD replaced LPs, to provide ever increasing quality for the vast number of
consumers. (I don't want to get into a futile discussion about vinyl being
better than CD, it may be perceived to be so for a few audiophiles, but for
the great majority of the population with their radiograms or music
centres,
CD was a VAST improvement.) Latterly, SACD and DVD-A promised even better
quality, but these have failed to capture the public imagination, for whom
CD is already "pure, perfect sound forever"
Instead, the public imagination has been captured by the convenience of
portable storage and free (or at least cheap) downloading of music, and
quest for quality has lost the public interest.
I can very well understand the frustration of recording companies and their
artists and audiophiles like ourselves when we find that bye and large,
nobody cares for audio quality any more. It is very interesting that even
amongst the audio professionals with whom I have spent my working life,
questions of audio quality no longer seem to figure in choosing equipment;
reliability, convenience and of course, price, are considered more
important, as good audio quality is "taken as read".
I would dearly love to see a campaign along the lines of the Campaign for
Real Ale which did so much to reverse the downward spiral of beer quality,
do the same for audio, but sadly, I think that as long as the bulk of the
music listening public can't see what's wrong with MP3, the likes of us
audiophiles will be crying in the wilderness.
Sadly,
S.
Codifus
giving them a chance. Forgive me for being cynical and assuming that you
didn't investigate.
I'm sure you can understand my stance, though.
CD
bob
> i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound inferior,
> at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or any mp3 players.
Wrong point. What happens when you plug an iPod into your home rig?
Does a .wav file on the Pod sound any different from the original disk
played on your CD player (when levels are matched, of course!)? If they
do, then one of them is doing something wrong.
And it probably ain't the iPod.
bob
Codifus
CD
Steven Sullivan
http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index2.html
"The compressed formats began to show some real promise at 320kbps.
Definition, detail, and soundstaging were all impressive, and
high-frequency response was almost liquid in its lack of edge effects. At
this rate, differences between the two formats jumped into sharper focus:
MP3 made transients "splashy," while AAC just sounded anemic compared to
the original. With both formats, dynamic variation was considerably
reduced compared to the CD."
Best of all—and, to my ears, completely indistinguishable from the
original CD—was AIFF. Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and
detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural. On my
reference rig, I could listen with immense pleasure for hours on end to
files ripped in AIFF. In fact, I did."
These quotes from Stereophile's ipod review do not suggest that sound
quality of the ipod per se is the problem.
Of course, typically for SP, they didn't do their comparisons blind, and I
suspect the 'splashy' and 'anemic' qualities heard at 320 kbps might
mysteriously disappear if so done.
Jenn
"Serge Auckland" <serge.a...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "John Sunier" <hen...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:doue6...@news4.newsguy.com...
> > http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910
>
> Whilst agreeing with the sentiments, there is one glaring errors in the
> text, which will detract from the value of the message.
>
> MP3 files do not offer 1/30th of the sample rate of CD. They are sampled at
> the same rate, or even a little higher at 48kHz. DATA rate is lower (not
> sample rate), but not 1/30th. An MP3 at 128kBs is approximately 11:1 data
> reduced, not 30:1.
>
> Nevertheless, it is true that right up until a few years ago, audio
> reproduction was ever upwards in quality. Microgroove LPs replaced 78s, and
> CD replaced LPs, to provide ever increasing quality for the vast number of
> consumers. (I don't want to get into a futile discussion about vinyl being
> better than CD, it may be perceived to be so for a few audiophiles, but for
> the great majority of the population with their radiograms or music
> centres,
> CD was a VAST improvement.)
It might surprise some to know that I agree totally with this statement.
> Latterly, SACD and DVD-A promised even better
> quality, but these have failed to capture the public imagination, for whom
> CD is already "pure, perfect sound forever"
>
> Instead, the public imagination has been captured by the convenience of
> portable storage and free (or at least cheap) downloading of music, and
> quest for quality has lost the public interest.
>
> I can very well understand the frustration of recording companies and their
> artists and audiophiles like ourselves when we find that bye and large,
> nobody cares for audio quality any more. It is very interesting that even
> amongst the audio professionals with whom I have spent my working life,
> questions of audio quality no longer seem to figure in choosing equipment;
> reliability, convenience and of course, price, are considered more
> important, as good audio quality is "taken as read".
>
> I would dearly love to see a campaign along the lines of the Campaign for
> Real Ale which did so much to reverse the downward spiral of beer quality,
> do the same for audio, but sadly, I think that as long as the bulk of the
> music listening public can't see what's wrong with MP3, the likes of us
> audiophiles will be crying in the wilderness.
>
> Sadly,
>
> S.
Serge, thanks for the cogent post. IMO you are spot on with each issue.
There is an interesting piece currently on the NY Times website on
amplification in classical music performance that, I believe, relates to
the current of audio reproduction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/arts/music/01tomm.html
Thanks again for the post.
Jenn
Steven Sullivan
Forgot to add, having posted a bit from the critical-listening review
in Stereophile -- they also measured the thingie.
"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used
to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade
off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job
of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.—John Atkinson"
bob
> Nevertheless, it is true that right up until a few years ago, audio
> reproduction was ever upwards in quality. Microgroove LPs replaced 78s, and
> CD replaced LPs, to provide ever increasing quality for the vast number of
> consumers. (I don't want to get into a futile discussion about vinyl being
> better than CD, it may be perceived to be so for a few audiophiles, but for
> the great majority of the population with their radiograms or music
> centres,
> CD was a VAST improvement.) Latterly, SACD and DVD-A promised even better
> quality, but these have failed to capture the public imagination, for whom
> CD is already "pure, perfect sound forever"
>
> Instead, the public imagination has been captured by the convenience of
> portable storage and free (or at least cheap) downloading of music, and
> quest for quality has lost the public interest.
>
> I can very well understand the frustration of recording companies and their
> artists and audiophiles like ourselves when we find that bye and large,
> nobody cares for audio quality any more.
It's probably more true that the vast majority never cared about audio
quality. But they (and the rest of us) got better audio quality anyway,
as you noted above. What's changed in recent years is that the desires
of the masses and those of the "elite" are no longer pulling in the
same direction (a process that probably started with the introduction
of the Walkman). And it's the masses who move the market.
> It is very interesting that even
> amongst the audio professionals with whom I have spent my working life,
> questions of audio quality no longer seem to figure in choosing equipment;
> reliability, convenience and of course, price, are considered more
> important, as good audio quality is "taken as read".
>
> I would dearly love to see a campaign along the lines of the Campaign for
> Real Ale which did so much to reverse the downward spiral of beer quality,
> do the same for audio, but sadly, I think that as long as the bulk of the
> music listening public can't see what's wrong with MP3, the likes of us
> audiophiles will be crying in the wilderness.
The bulk of the public didn't (and most still don't) see what's wrong
with Bud, either, but it's a lot easier to get a good beer these days.
Still, a Campaign for Real Sound would face some tougher challenges.
For one thing, getting a good beer takes no more work than opening the
right bottle. Getting good sound in your living room is a more
demanding task. You can't just sell it to them.
Then there's the fact that, for most people most of the time, music
really is background, and 128kbps is quite adequate for that task. So
before you convince them to pay for better sound, you have to convince
them to spend more time listening attentively to music. The Campaign
for Real Ale wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it had to start by
convincing people to drink beer in the first place.
Also, the difference between Real Ale and mass-produced horse piss is
readily apparent, even to those who decide the former is not worth the
premium price. Alas, a large chunk of the industry that would have to
underwrite the Campaign for Real Sound isn't really offering anything
better, or even different.
bob
Jenn
Thanks for that tip. I have a few days off, so I'm going to try
different rates and see what happens. This is more fun than I thought
it would be; this thing is kind of seductive! :-) I'm also waiting on
the arrival of a Target rack that will allow me to change my hi-fi set
up MUCH to the better for sound; it will allow for a more dedicated
listening space like I used to have in the "old days." Good fun!
Jenn
wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
> > the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
> > wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
> > on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
> > amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
> > since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
> > kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
> > I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
> > fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
> > hour :-)
>
> It's hard to imagine filling a 30- or 60-gig iPod with 128kbps content.
> You'll be ripping disks for a year!
Well, I've got 20 gig remaining on my 30 gig 'pod, and lots that I
still want on it!
> (And how many minutes of class will
> you waste scrolling through all of it to find what you're looking for?)
I'm organizing the files into very specific playlists that will make
finding them quick and easy.
>
>
> I usually recommend ripping at 192 kbps as a good compromise between
> resolution and file size.
I'll give that a try and see what happens.
> Of course, that won't work if youreally need
> to cram 400 CDs onto a 30-gig drive. In which case, I have any even
> better solution: You need TWO iPods--one for the class, and one for
> you!
>
> bob
LOL Good idea!
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in news:dp7ovt02uu0
>@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>> Actually, I'm very hard pushed to differentiate it from an original CD
>> on my main music rig, and that seems to be a common consensus.
>
>ok, now i'm confused.
>
>your main music rig is an iPod?
I can connect an iPod to it, certainly, but it's a little larger than
your average iPod speaker rig...........
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/stewart_p/stewart_p.html
>> What makes you think that it *should* sound inferior?
>
>i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound inferior,
>at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or any mp3 players.
In that case, how do you know that it sounds inferior? Try it, you'll
be pleasantly surprised - assuming full-resolution files, of course.
Harry Lavo
news:dpehv...@news2.newsguy.com...
> stealthaxe <steal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "jwvm" <jw...@umich.edu> wrote in news:dp7g...@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>> > Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
>> > be?
>
>> have you listened to an iPod? critically?
>
>
> Forgot to add, having posted a bit from the critical-listening review
> in Stereophile -- they also measured the thingie.
>
>
> to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such
> good performance. But if you're willing to trade
> off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or
> WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job
> of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an
>
Keep in mind that this was a review of the mid-range iPod MINI, I believe.
Others have commented on it favorably as well, but point out that it is much
better than either the earlier and current larger ones or the tiny Shuffle.
They also point out that competitive models are much worse.
Harry Lavo
news:dpe68...@news3.newsguy.com...
The phrase "the good is enemy of the best" comes to mind.
Simply more dumbing down of absolute standards.
Chung
Harry, that was a review of the 3rd generation iPod, from 2003. The
newer iPods, especially the iPod shuffle, the iPod nano and the video
iPod, are substantially better. They have now fixed the problem with
piano solo MP3's/AAC's that plagued the iPods through the 4G. The iPod
shuffle is the cheapest iPod and sounds excellent. Better than the first
three generations, in my and many others' opinions.
Stewart Pinkerton
It's certainly one of the standard iPod options, along with 320kb/sec
AAC, which I personally find indistiguishable from an original CD.
stealthaxe
> http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index2.html
> "The compressed formats began to show some real promise at 320kbps.
> Definition, detail, and soundstaging were all impressive, and
> high-frequency response was almost liquid in its lack of edge effects.
> At this rate, differences between the two formats jumped into sharper
> focus: MP3 made transients "splashy," while AAC just sounded anemic
> compared to the original. With both formats, dynamic variation was
> considerably reduced compared to the CD."
> Best of all—and, to my ears, completely indistinguishable from the
> original CD—was AIFF. Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced
> and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural.
> On my reference rig, I could listen with immense pleasure for hours on
> end to files ripped in AIFF. In fact, I did."
> These quotes from Stereophile's ipod review do not suggest that sound
> quality of the ipod per se is the problem.
those quotes don't mention an iPod at all. to you that's proof that the
iPod is good?
listen, I'VE listened to an iPod. I'm not impressed. It's only my
opinion, and no one else has to agree, but I'm certainly allowed to draw
my own conclusions about people who say the iPod is a high quality music
system.
> Of course, typically for SP, they didn't do their comparisons blind,
> and I suspect the 'splashy' and 'anemic' qualities heard at 320 kbps
> might mysteriously disappear if so done.
suppositions abound.
like i said, i've heard it.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
>sa:
>> have you listened to an iPod? critically?
> Forgot to add, having posted a bit from the critical-listening review
> in Stereophile -- they also measured the thingie.
are you gonna answer my question? have YOU listened critically to an iPod?
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
>>i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound
>>inferior, at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or
>>any mp3 players.
> In that case, how do you know that it sounds inferior? Try it, you'll
> be pleasantly surprised - assuming full-resolution files, of course.
if you'd read another thread, I said that I did listen to it. i think it
does sound inferior - i've heard it. my son has an iPod.
one thing that I haven't tried though, and I'm going to do soon, is to rip
a couple of my SACDs to .mp3 files. That should prove an interesting
experiment -- whether that would sound better than a production CD or not.
I think it's going to be + and - situation, but I need to set up my gear to
do it.
--
stealthaxe
Steven Sullivan
Oh for heaven's sake. Yes, I have listened critically,
over headphones and over my loudspeakers. With high bitrate
material (specifically, encoded by LAME at alt preset --standard, which is
a VBR setting), and with WAV, it sounded uniformly excellent.
I doubt I'd be able to tell it from a CD.
Is this anecdote gonna settle the issue for YOU?
Is there a particular reason you think the iPod *should* sound poorly?
Steven Sullivan
Your reasoning here is, shall we say, quixotic.
The 'production CD' may have different mastering from the SACD in the first place,
which renders the experiment moot.
And if you can determine in advance that it does not, and yet you verify a
difference in a blind comparison after it's been ported to an iPod, how would
you know whether it was due to the A/D conversion you'll have had to do, or
to the lossy compression, or to the iPod?
Chung
> Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:dpehs...@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index2.html
>
>> "The compressed formats began to show some real promise at 320kbps.
>> Definition, detail, and soundstaging were all impressive, and
>> high-frequency response was almost liquid in its lack of edge effects.
>> At this rate, differences between the two formats jumped into sharper
>> focus: MP3 made transients "splashy," while AAC just sounded anemic
>> compared to the original. With both formats, dynamic variation was
>> considerably reduced compared to the CD."
>
>> Best of all—and, to my ears, completely indistinguishable from the
>> original CD—was AIFF. Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced
>> and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural.
>> On my reference rig, I could listen with immense pleasure for hours on
>> end to files ripped in AIFF. In fact, I did."
>
>
>> These quotes from Stereophile's ipod review do not suggest that sound
>> quality of the ipod per se is the problem.
>
> those quotes don't mention an iPod at all. to you that's proof that the
> iPod is good?
If you read carefully, the writer of those quotes was running the iPod's
line outputs to an integrated amp driving speakers. In other words,
using the iPod's DAC's and decoding/decompression circuits. And he could
not tell any difference between the AIFF's ripped from CD's and the
original CD's.
>
> listen, I'VE listened to an iPod. I'm not impressed. It's only my
> opinion, and no one else has to agree, but I'm certainly allowed to draw
> my own conclusions about people who say the iPod is a high quality music
> system.
You can certainly decide to stick with your opinion. The others,
including SP, if you have not noticed, have a much higher opinion of the
iPod as a digital player. Which begs the question: were you listening to
the iPod critically, and were you comparing it to CD players with levels
matched?
>
norman...@comcast.net
news:dpken...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:dpepf...@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>>i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound
>>>inferior, at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or
>>>any mp3 players.
>
>> In that case, how do you know that it sounds inferior? Try it, you'll
>> be pleasantly surprised - assuming full-resolution files, of course.
>
> if you'd read another thread, I said that I did listen to it. i think it
> does sound inferior - i've heard it. my son has an iPod.
>
> one thing that I haven't tried though, and I'm going to do soon, is to rip
> a couple of my SACDs to .mp3 files. That should prove an interesting
> experiment -- whether that would sound better than a production CD or not.
You're going to "rip" your SACDs to mp3 files? I understand that the
digital info is not available from SACD players, so you will have to
"record" your SACDs to mp3 files--an entirely different matter.
Norm Strong
stealthaxe
> Oh for heaven's sake. Yes, I have listened critically,
> over headphones and over my loudspeakers. With high bitrate
> material (specifically, encoded by LAME at alt preset --standard,
> which is a VBR setting), and with WAV, it sounded uniformly excellent.
> I doubt I'd be able to tell it from a CD.
> Is this anecdote gonna settle the issue for YOU?
it helps. my point was that i've listened to it, and you were telling me
about what so-and-so thinks about it and I was really wondering if you'd
listened yourself or just running up the flags.
> Is there a particular reason you think the iPod *should* sound poorly?
that's an odd question but I'll try to answer it. when i first listened
to one I didn't really have any preconceived notions but I also didn't
have high expectations. when i finally did listen to it, it was vaguely
similar to listening to MP3s on my laptop. For grins I plugged it into
my powered studio monitors. I might actually buy something like that to
use for filler music between sets. With my VBR files, I'd say the
dynamics are unexciting and almost dull, but it is fairly clean and
decently wideband. I tend to like a robust low end, and I didn't find
that through the headphones or the monitors. Straight from the SACD
player I get considerably more dynamic lows.
No, I didn't make any measurements.
--
console: Mackie 1604VLZ
monitors: JBL EON II, KRK RP8
headphones: sony mdr v700
SACD by Onkyo
iPod: 30 GB
--
stealthaxe
Stewart Pinkerton
Form your posts, it would appear that *you* are the one who hasn't
listened critically to an iPod, but has only used it for mobile
listening. Have you ever hooked it up to a really good home system?
stealthaxe
> The 'production CD' may have different mastering from the SACD in the
> first place, which renders the experiment moot.
heck no it's not moot.
i want to see what kind of sound i get. if it's better because of the
mastering, so be it.
> And if you can determine in advance that it does not, and yet you
> verify a difference in a blind comparison after it's been ported to an
> iPod, how would you know whether it was due to the A/D conversion
> you'll have had to do, or to the lossy compression, or to the iPod?
my point is to see what it sounds like if i do that, not to find which
piece to blame if it sounds bad.
--
stealthaxe
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:dpepf...@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>>i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound
>>>inferior, at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or
>>>any mp3 players.
>
>> In that case, how do you know that it sounds inferior? Try it, you'll
>> be pleasantly surprised - assuming full-resolution files, of course.
>
>if you'd read another thread, I said that I did listen to it. i think it
>does sound inferior - i've heard it. my son has an iPod.
No, you said you never listened to it on your home rig. We're talking
about using an iPod as a source for your main music system, which you
appear *not* to have tried.
>one thing that I haven't tried though, and I'm going to do soon, is to rip
>a couple of my SACDs to .mp3 files. That should prove an interesting
>experiment -- whether that would sound better than a production CD or not.
Obviously, it can't sound *better* than the source - the question is
whether it will sound the *same* as the source CD.
>I think it's going to be + and - situation, but I need to set up my gear to
>do it.
MP3 at high bit rates can be pretty good, but most opinions suggest
that AAC is a superior codec.
stealthaxe
> Form your posts, it would appear that *you* are the one who hasn't
> listened critically to an iPod, but has only used it for mobile
> listening. Have you ever hooked it up to a really good home system?
In fact I did say that I did this. The same system that my SACD player is
connected to. I also tried it in my music room.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
> You're going to "rip" your SACDs to mp3 files? I understand that the
> digital info is not available from SACD players, so you will have to
> "record" your SACDs to mp3 files--an entirely different matter.
yes, you are correct. i will not be able to do it digitally from the
player. fortunately i have a 24/192 8 channel DAC and a PC that can drive
it.
in some cases you can rip from the CD layer (meaning when there IS a CD
layer), but this would be against the point of my test.
--
stealthaxe
stealthaxe
> No, you said you never listened to it on your home rig. We're talking
> about using an iPod as a source for your main music system, which you
> appear *not* to have tried.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'd never done that, just that I don't
continue to do it.
>>one thing that I haven't tried though, and I'm going to do soon, is to
>>rip a couple of my SACDs to .mp3 files. That should prove an
>>interesting experiment -- whether that would sound better than a
>>production CD or not.
> Obviously, it can't sound *better* than the source - the question is
> whether it will sound the *same* as the source CD.
It's possible that it can sound better than a regular ol' CD.
--
stealthaxe
Steven Sullivan
> <norman...@comcast.net> wrote in news:dpn1n...@news2.newsguy.com:
> > You're going to "rip" your SACDs to mp3 files? I understand that the
> > digital info is not available from SACD players, so you will have to
> > "record" your SACDs to mp3 files--an entirely different matter.
> yes, you are correct. i will not be able to do it digitally from the
> player. fortunately i have a 24/192 8 channel DAC and a PC that can drive
> it.
There is a DAC out there that can pass SACD?