[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif So... what, you just don't listen to music unless on the go with your portable setup? I find that hard to believe. What if you really want to LISTEN? Not on the bus or when walking to get lunch - when you're simply absorbing the music and not being a passive listener. What then? What media do you have to turn to?

I listen to music on my portable setup 99% of the time. Regardless of how hard you find that to believe. Remember that not every one is like you and not every one lives your life style. So never assume so. I spend most my time out on the road either on a business trip or recreational trip. I spend hours on trains, buses and airplanes going from one end of the country to the other. Even when I am home I hate to be inside, especially in this nice weather, so I'm normally at a park, outdoors cafe, working in the yard, at the marina, roaming the streets of NYC... etc. So yea I do most my listening On The Go.

When I go to parks that's when I really "LISTEN". I close my eyes lay on the grass and let the music play. Even when I'm walking around or on some form of public transportation I still "LISTEN". Why does it have to be background music just because I'm on the bus. My E500s do an excellent job of blocking out outside noise. I'm the person you see on the plane, bus or train with their eyes closed, smile on their face and head bobbing back in forth... hell I've even cried on the train because one of the albums I was listening to was so moving. I don't understand why some people on hear think you can only "LISTEN" at home in a dark room with no other distractions. I can enjoy my music fully anywhere. I think it's really heartbreaking if you can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most Head-Fi'ers I would like to believe spend lots of time absorbing music and striving for the highest quality possible. There's lots out there who just put music on while on the bus to pass time. In fact, I would think most "normal" people don't listen to music much at all outside of transportation time or down time while outside their homes. *can't forget casual computer listening time as well*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree completely. This is why digital audio is most proper for "most people". You'd think that if you "spend lots of time absorbing music" you'd have a better means of doing so than compressed digital files.

I'm truly surprised at all the ignorance in this thread. Especially here on a site where people should know every listening experience is personal and subjective. Just because my listening preference is different than yours doesn't mean I spend less time absorbing music or than my listening experience is less than yours in anyway. By the looks of it I may actually spend more time absorbing and enjoying my music because I can enjoy it anywhere. Either way I'm truly surprised at this "one size fits all" view some people here seem to be taking. I can truly understand why Audiophiles have such a bad rep. The pure ignorance and prejudice in this thread is a great example.

Anyway it's be fun guys! My rides here and it's time to go camping!

 

[SR-71Panorama]

You know, I just realized, it doesnt matter if they stop making new cds in a few years, because today's music sucks.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm truly surprised at all the ignorance in this thread. Especially here on a site where people should know every listening experience is personal and subjective. Just because my listening preference is different than yours doesn't mean I spend less time absorbing music or than my listening experience is less than yours in anyway. By the looks of it I may actually spend more time absorbing and enjoying my music because I can enjoy it anywhere. Either way I'm truly surprised at this "one size fits all" view some people here seem to be taking. I can truly understand why Audiophiles have such a bad rep. The pure ignorance and prejudice in this thread is a great example.

Digital, you're taking this far too personally. Nothing is aimed at you maliciously here, just a few differences in preferences.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SR-71Panorama /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know, I just realized, it doesnt matter if they stop making new cds in a few years, because today's music sucks.

You're probably right. Used CD's mastered before the mid 90's are the best way to go anyhow.

 

[mwallace573]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SR-71Panorama /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know, I just realized, it doesnt matter if they stop making new cds in a few years, because today's music sucks.

Can't completely agree with that statement. Granted, SQ and mastering has taken a turn for the worst for the last 20 years or so, and good albums are getting hard to find. However, rare as they might be, great albums are still being produced, you just have to look a little harder to find them. I think a good, really recent example would be the new Battles CD (referring to Music quality, not Sound quality).

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif IYou'd think that if you "spend lots of time absorbing music" you'd have a better means of doing so than compressed digital files.

I agree with Digitalbath on this. Some of you seem to questioning her worth as a human being, just because she listens to mp3s.

100% of my listening is done with mp3/aac. Many from emusic as well. It suits my lifestyle in many ways, and I do not find any significant advantage in going lossless. I still prefer owning an actual cd if I can, but I never once actually listen to the cd. In fact, my only cd player is unplugged in my closet.

My portable rig is my home rig, like many others. And I can guarantee I listen just as intently and be as emotionally absorbed in the music as anyone.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with Digitalbath on this. Some of you seem to questioning her worth as a human being, just because she listens to mp3s. 100% of my listening is done with mp3/aac. Many from emusic as well. It suits my lifestyle in many ways, and I do not find any significant advantage in going lossless. I still prefer owning an actual cd if I can, but I never once actually listen to the cd. In fact, my only cd player is unplugged in my closet. My portable rig is my home rig, like many others. And I can guarantee I listen just as intently and be as emotionally absorbed in the music as anyone.

I am not at all judging her "worth" just because of how she chooses to listen to her music. My mere assertion was that digital files offer unobjectionable traits of distancing itself from the listener, due to the media form's relative youth. At the moment, there are few ways to achieve tangibleness of the MP3 format. When I walk around the streets of NYC, I see few people 'absorbing' music versus 'drowning out the outside noise'. Which is fine -- so long as there are other means for the listener to enjoy the music in more depth.

I too must admit to occasionally bringing my DAP to Washington Square Park and just relaxing with it. However, I truly find myself unable to "study" music in this context. I simply enjoy the act of doing so. The "physicalness" of CDs/LPs/etc. in the context of listening in my apartment helps achieve a stronger connection to the musicians, which is what I am ultimately most concerned about (for both my personal and professional lives).

I think it would go without saying that the most optimal place to listen in such an environment would be to have as neutral of a surrounding habitat as possible. There are ways to turn other environments into more neutral places, such as noise-blocking in ear monitors and the like, but I still find through my experiences that the best way to enjoy the music is to dim the lights and sit at my stereo with my eyes closed. Your mileage may vary, but as far as I'm concerned, there needs to be some aspect of physicalness to the format - some listening media with unmovable roots of foundation - in order to extract the most out of the experience. Granted, this is only for a specific kind of "experience", but nonetheless, it's the experience that I would be most concerned with in the long run. I find distractions in computers, trains, airplanes, and public parks, that all detract from this experience, no matter how sophisticated the gear is. I may myself enjoy listening to music in these contexts, but I would never rely solely on this equipment.

These comments were never meant to be a personal attack on any level. I apologize if anybody felt this way, but it was not my intent. The only point I was trying to make was that there is, in my mind, a lasting quality of physical media that has not been replaced by digital media as of yet. Of course, the ever-changing economy of the music industry will make that statement untrue quite soon, but the current transitional period of the industry that we face currently is not conducive to that fact just yet.

 

[HiWire]

CD for me. You can always rip a CD to whatever format is most convenient, and there are plenty of high-end CD players coming out every year.

 

[TheAnomaly]

CD if i'm doing digital. for casual listening compressed formats are fine, and most music today is mastered fairly poorly, so it's not all that important.

as for the discussion at hand: i can't see why anyone would rather purchase pre-encoded things form a music store, aside from being the most convenient means of getting "something" to listen to. again, most music today i don't feel is worth much more than that, but if i am trying to be a bit more discerning in my listening i do use either lossless encoded digital or vinyl. on my setup, these are truly better, and it is often annoyingly obvious when listening to other things how inferior they are.

 

[mardraum]

I don't at all mind not having a physical copy of something so long as there's a guarantee of being able to re-download in the event of a hard drive crash or something. I buy CDs, rip them, and toss them in a box anyway... I used to think it was nice to physically have them, but that's just disturbingly consumerist of me. Even if I want to see the art it's available online, and I could always print it if I wanted to. Were digital downloads actually well-priced, I'd liken buying CDs to buying a boxed copy of Windows instead of an OEM version just because you like the box color. I'm just as able to listen to/enjoy an album in FLAC or good quality MP3 as I am the actual CD.

...unfortunately, digital download prices are a joke. A lossy album costs as much as the CD? 100mb of bandwidth plus enough for the download service to profit can't be nearly as expensive as printing, distributing, inspecting, selling CDs, and I somehow doubt that the artists are the ones seeing any difference. Lossless is the only product I'd actually consider buying, but it's even more expensive on the few places that happen to offer it. bleep.com has Autechre FLAC downloads at a sketchy but sane $13ish, but I've seen FLAC go for as much as $20 an album in other places... again, I don't see how the tripled bandwidth is worth twice the price. For the time being, it'll be buying CDs and tossing them in the box as usual.

Hypothetically, because in reality I could just never support something as terrible and evil as music piracy, my preferred and most cost-effective option would be to just get FLAC rips on my own and then if I like them buy a t-shirt or send them a little cash or something. And maybe some soup.

 

[krmathis]

CD for me!
Since I then get access to the PCM stream, which I can store and play lossless on any of my headphone rigs.

Buying lossy (AAC or MP3) music online are more cost efficient. But until they start selling mainstream music in a lossless format I wont go that way.
Apple Lossless on iTunes Store are my dream!