Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 29

post #421 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragncajn View Post

As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog. the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.


I don't think anyone argues on the point of a real guitar vs a recorded one. The rest (digital vs analog, 24 bit vs 16 bit) are well covered debates everywhere, and there's plenty of stuff to go through in order to make up your mind.

 

But you can always use your ears, they're probably the most reliable human sensory organ.biggrin.gif


Edited by proton007 - 2/5/13 at 5:59pm
post #422 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragncajn View Post

As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog. 

 

Either that or you are fooling yourself. The history of blind tests suggests the later.

 

 

Quote:
the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket.

 

You seem to be implying that analog recording is inherently better than digital. It's easy to see why you might think that - but there is a lot of non-easy to understand evidence that says this is bs.

 

 

Quote:

 

give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster.

 

That reminds me - I have a CD I have to make an ogg of. It's by Placebo...

post #423 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragncajn View Post

Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.

 

When you talk about Red Hot Chili Peppers and sound quality, I'm afraid you totally lose me.

post #424 of 439
Blood Sugar Sex Magik sounds pretty good (DR14).
post #425 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

Blood Sugar Sex Magik sounds pretty good (DR14).

I think it is the last album of theirs that does.....

 

 

obviously this one was not "loudness war" mangled like the later albums were. 

post #426 of 439

Mediocre is the new good.

post #427 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

When you talk about Red Hot Chili Peppers and sound quality, I'm afraid you totally lose me.

 

Be fair: he said "sound", not "music."

post #428 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Mediocre is the new good.

 

Red is the new blue!

post #429 of 439

I think people who just listen to current rock music don't know what good sound sounds like. It's like bologna... Sure, there's salami which is undeniably better than regular old Oscar Meyer Bologna. But it still isn't a T Bone Steak.

post #430 of 439

At times I prefer the taste of a good Lebanon balogna to that of steak. Especially if it's like a Waffle House T bone we're talking about here.

 

Same with low dynamic range recordings. They have their place.

post #431 of 439

Folks are free to like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but even at their best, they aren't really examples of "great sound".

post #432 of 439
Listen to "The Empyrean" by John Frusciante, their guitarist. Excellent mastering.
post #433 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

Listen to "The Empyrean" by John Frusciante, their guitarist. Excellent mastering.

 

+1 John Frusciante's most recent album is excellently mastered imo. RHCP not so much.

post #434 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I think people who just listen to current rock music don't know what good sound sounds like. It's like bologna... Sure, there's salami which is undeniably better than regular old Oscar Meyer Bologna. But it still isn't a T Bone Steak.


Would like an example of what you think sounds great. Would like to compare it with BSSM (which I also think sounds great) for reference, if you'd be willing to do that.

post #435 of 439

Try Arthur Fiedler's Gaietie Parisienne...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Offenbach-parisienne-Rossini-Respighi-boutique-fantasque/dp/B0006PV5VW/

 

It was one of the very first stereo recordings, made in June, 1954 and it sounds light years better than anything today. No lie. Check it out yourself, my man!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality