[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDBacklash /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, you cant even enjoy flacs then? Well there goes my remaining respect for sennheiser. I sincerely hope you arent involved with anything other than customer service. What a joke.

I like Biosphere's, the mp3 compression cut first on the highs and then on the bass. The sound of the compression like mp3 will be artificial phase moving in sounds on the high area and on the low bass.

Biosphere's are ambient music with more pads and sound texture, and not so much drums. So, they are saved from heavy mp3 compression, but only to some degree of compression.

 

[D_4_Dog]

Yes as long as the gear's not hyper-resolving eg KSC-35 which is just plain old fun to listen to

 

[Acix]

lol, CDBacklash where the Biosphere's disappear ?

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol, now you tell me what I can hear? why you think they call them lossy and compressed?

High quality MP3 has inaudible frequency removed and not audible range. I admit there are some golden ears who may hear the difference but I bet they are 1% of the population at most. Seems to me that all audiophiles think they have golden ears which is just not true.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulveling /img/forum/go_quote.gif Next, just figure me out a good way to reliably archive that digital crap with truly low cost & maintenance...

There is no reliable way. Best to have more than one backup. I archive to 2 external HDDs and when BluRay burners and recording media are cheap I will archive to there also. Chance of one external HDD going south is possible but chance of 2 going south at the same time is very slim.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDBacklash /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, you cant even enjoy flacs then? Well there goes my remaining respect for sennheiser. I sincerely hope you arent involved with anything other than customer service. What a joke.

I think he means only MP3, OGG type compression. Flac does not remove frequencies like MP3 and OGG, they decompress when played like a zip file so are an exact duplicate of the original.

 

[crazyjeeper]

Yes.

I have no problem listening to 192 and up mp3s. In a perfect world, everything would be flac, but Mp3s aren't that bad.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D_4_Dog /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes as long as the gear's not hyper-resolving eg KSC-35 which is just plain old fun to listen to

Is EMU 0404 USB>LunchboxPro>DT990pro or ATH-M50 resolving enough? If it is then I will have to break out the DBT again and see if I have grown golden ears yet because last test I did was on HD595 using me and a friend as the test subjects using 256kb/s MP3 and .wav files of both rock and classical music and we both failed to pass. I bet most of you who claim that MP3 sucks have never even done DBT. That makes it opinion and not fact.

 

[Optional]

All about the music for me, I hear songs first in lossy pretty much everywhere, on the radio, online, in itunes store, amazon, etc.. then if I like the style and enjoy it, I'll go out and buy the CD and make a lossless (ALAC) and lossy (V0 MP3) rip of it, lossless for home and my car via my iPod Classic, and lossy for my iPhone and my in-ear portables.

 

[DrBenway]

In a perfect world I would listen to nothing but .wav and .flac files. Trouble is, I don't live in a perfect world. If the music is good, I can tolerate less than perfect sound quite easily.

Throughout my life I have often listened to vintage recordings of blues, jazz, country and various other kinds of music. Many of these recordings, for example the earliest field recordings of Muddy Waters, are poor in quality. That just doesn't matter, given the excellence of the music. I apply the same rationale to compressed recordings. Not ideal, as I said, but I don't allow that to interfere with my enjoyment of great music.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif High quality MP3 has inaudible frequency removed and not audible range. I admit there are some golden ears who may hear the difference but I bet they are 1% of the population at most. Seems to me that all audiophiles think they have golden ears which is just not true.

I completely agree that people in general, and audiophiles in particular, often hear what they want to hear. I think there is a thread on Head-Fi about the relative sonic merits of different kinds of solder. I definitely can't go there, but it's all a matter of degree.

If we are talking about high bit-rate MP3s, ie 320K CBR, then I don't think most people can hear a difference. I have, under certain circumstances, flattered myself that I can, but the differences have always been subtle. Of course, differences become more and more apparent as the quality of the reproducing system improves.

On the other hand, for years 128K MP3s were touted as "CD quality," which is just plain bull. At that level of compression, 90 percent of the original information has been sucked out of the file. Plenty of audible material has been chucked, and that's apparent even on modest portable equipment.

So the question is, where do you draw the line, and why would you want to? With broadband connections routinely offering 10 Mbps and up, download times are not a problem for .flacs and even for .wav's. Similarly, with storage available for less than 10 cents per gig, space is not an issue either.

I just don't see the need for compression at this point. I have a subscription to eMusic, and I would drop them like a hot rock if someone would offer me the same selection in .flac format.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif High quality MP3 has inaudible frequency removed and not audible range. I admit there are some golden ears who may hear the difference but I bet they are 1% of the population at most. Seems to me that all audiophiles think they have golden ears which is just not true.

Who are you trying to convince...me or you?

Mp3s are for internet use, and low quality free music demos over the net.

 

[estreeter]

Personally, I have no problems with 320K vbr MP3s ripped using LAME, and I am listening to exactly that from my Cowon as I type this : fantastic. That said, I accept that any compression will be anathema to some Head-Fiers, and thats fine if you dont plan to put a thousand WAV/Apple Lossless files on a portable. Even then, I have no problem with those who refuse to move away from vinyl - its all good - but I wont be giving up my portable players anytime soon. The key to compressed music is not to shine too bright a light on your compressed copies and expect them to line up with the original masterpieces you enjoy at night on your dedicated hi-fi kit : thats a recipe for disappointment.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the other hand, for years 128K MP3s were touted as "CD quality," which is just plain bull. At that level of compression, 90 percent of the original information has been sucked out of the file. Plenty of audible material has been chucked, and that's apparent even on modest portable equipment.

Me doth think you exaggerate. 90%? No where near that amount is removed but I agree that 128kb/s is not acceptable level of compression. Apple sure thought it was and was actually charging $0.99 per song for crap 128kb/s until people complained about it.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who are you trying to convince...me or you? Mp3s are for internet use, and low quality free music demos over the net.

Yea, sure. That's why many higher end surround amps now come with interface to access your MP3s, because they are so ****ty. I don't need to convince myself of anything because i have already scientifically proven to myself that you are FOS. How many DBT you done? Oh, right, none.