[veezhun]

this is turning out into a very good discussion..

personally, the demand for good quality hardware is among a chosen few. i accept that. but there is precedent to prove that once a lot of people are aware of a better choice, demand goes up and prices do react accordingly.. it happened with DVD and now it will happen with blu ray/Hd Dvd...

i am just a bit worried that audio will almost completely move to the compressed domain.. i would love to be proved wrong.. portability for sure is nice but music isnt only portability..

music is the soul of life and i would sure as hell not want to compress my soul

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veezhun i am just a bit worried that audio will almost completely move to the compressed domain.. i would love to be proved wrong.. portability for sure is nice but music isnt only portability.. music is the soul of life and i would sure as hell not want to compress my soul

With the extreme success of portable audio players in the recent years with average consumers, it seems like compression is the way it'll unfortunately go. Faster download times, and more storage on the players themselves.

On the upside, memory technology and prices are improving year by year...so further compression might not be needed. That doesn't help the current situation you describe though...

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan Well, I must agree with veezhun. For example, this website has seen alot of activity lately, more and more people are joining and start to be interested yet again in audiophile quality. It's only a matter of time before the market opens up and soon enough most people will have decent listening rigs at home, as music plays a very big role in most people's lives. I don't doubt one bit that we're the forefathers of a new audiophile generation

nah, quite a few of this 'new wave' of members waffle about in the sub-200 range for phones, constantly snipe at other members who spend on power-conditioniting/ICs all the while while entertaining delusions of adequacy regarding their rigs while laughing quietly at those who spend far more on their rigs or are into 'vintage' technology like tubes or vinyl.

 

[TooNice]

IMO, uncompressed format is here to stay. Here are my arguments:

1) Media capacity are getting bigger, yet artists won't suddenly be able to produce several times as many songs per albums (trend may change, but I don't see this change in the near future).

2) The same can be said for bandwidth. More bandwidth mean quicker to download, which also mean that online stores like iTune will have no reason not to increase the bitrate used. And in due time, lossless may well become a standard.

In the short/medium term, lossy is here to stay though. It is efficient, and good enough to most hardware out there (audiophile components does not fit into the "most" category - but there will always be a niche for it, because niche market = $$$

).

 

[notnormal]

Technology is making things better. Compressed music beats the heck out of AM/FM radio

.

 

[Publius]

Don't be so sure about that. In some countries the mainstream digital radio formats are something like 48kbps. MP2.

 

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Don't be so sure about that. In some countries the mainstream digital radio formats are something like 48kbps. MP2.

So your saying that the 48kbps mp2 is better than the lame -aps encoded music stored on my DAP?

 

[Publius]

Obviously not, it was more of a comment on compressed music in general compared to radio in specific. This may sound a bit funny now, but FM has rather shockingly good sound quality if it's implemented right. Some have argued that during the 1950s-70s it was the best consumer sound technology available, having an extremely good dynamic range and none of the noise/click/pop issues present with vinyl (or the LPs most people are familiar with).

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Obviously not, it was more of a comment on compressed music in general compared to radio in specific. This may sound a bit funny now, but FM has rather shockingly good sound quality if it's implemented right. Some have argued that during the 1950s-70s it was the best consumer sound technology available, having an extremely good dynamic range and none of the noise/click/pop issues present with vinyl (or the LPs most people are familiar with).

FM really can be done right. I've been fortunate enough to have portables with really strong reception, and often I'm in awe at the clarity I get from my preferred stations. Completely acceptable and comparable to mp3 quality.

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gshan FM really can be done right. I've been fortunate enough to have portables with really strong reception, and often I'm in awe at the clarity I get from my preferred stations. Completely acceptable and comparable to mp3 quality.

Always wondered about. FM does sound good on occasion. Why?

 

[jmb]

I used to listen, when I was an youngin', to freakin tapes on my sony walkman with stock headphones and was happy as a clam.

The compression technology out there is AMAZING. PERIOD.

I can now listen to my Karma with my PX100's and have a very enjoyable experience. Plus...

1. Data storage will get smaller, higher capacity, and cheaper. Fact.
2. Lossless compression methods will get more effecient (smaller file sizes). Fact.
3. DAPs will get better in terms of sound quality. Hope so anyway.

Fact is we have have it so good right now, and it will only get better and cheaper.

Computer technology is amazing. I am in awe of the very talented, imaginative, and dedicated people who have brought us to the point we are now.

I agree, companies have put sound quality (hardware) in the backseat to design and size. But that will change. Hopefully. Lets hope the Neuros 3 will lead the way.

 

[jmb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veezhun As my title suggests, I am most concerned when people are becoming more and more satisfied with compressed music. I used to think technology makes things better. In this context, I can safely say music and music distribution is increasingly taking a backward step.

Sound processing has improved significantly and will continue to do so. They only thing that has degraded is the quality of headpone amps in portables to make them smaller and add features that have nothing to do with sound quality. And the things they do add for sound quality....
Bass boost, EAX, weak ass distorting EQ's....give me a break

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veezhun As my title suggests, I am most concerned when people are becoming more and more satisfied with compressed music. I used to think technology makes things better. In this context, I can safely say music and music distribution is increasingly taking a backward step.

If I worried about what others are listening to--and I don't--I'd be more concerned about what passes for "music" these days. I would rather listen to Mozart at 32kbps than hip-hop on the world's finest system.

 

[TooNice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmb 2. Lossless compression methods will get more effecient (smaller file sizes). Fact.

True, but I reckon this part might tap out the first.

As for sound processing, yea.. I suppose that from a purist point of view, it probably ain't welcome. But I think I am more interested in how it sounds to me than how it -should- sound to be honest. If those two happen to be the same goal, great. If not, then too bad.

EAX is good for its purpose (gaming). I only miss the fact that Aureal isn't around to make Creative work harder, but EAX remains a tech a gamer would rather have than not have.

 

[dave-g]

here's the way I see it, the AVERAGE consumer...
1. listens to pop music that is overly compressed (zero dynamics) already
2. has a home system that is either a boom box, self-powered computer speakers or a "home theater" from one of the retail stores (kmart/walmart/target)
3. thinks that the stock ipods headphones sound great
4. has less than 100 cds
5. have never been exposed to true hi-end audio or could care less

given the above, why would they need music encoded any higher than a 128k AAC file? 128 AAC file would sound fine on their sources and they woudn't be able to spot the limitations.

as for the higher resolution formats, it's great for us audio people, don't get me wrong. i'm all for higher fidelity, my ears can't take mp3's recorded at any resolution. but for the record companies it's just another way they are trying to make money off of their back catalog (hey it's easier than actually having to do real A&R development!!) as their cash cow, (reissuing everything on CD) has finally dried up. the scary part is that the high resolution formats that are out now are mostly (yeah i know that there are some new releases coming out now) just reissues from the 1950's and 1960's! there's far more in those old analog tapes than anyone ever knew and I really don't think we've uncovered it all yet...

viva la resolution!!

dave-g (former RECORD label owner, note: records are those black disks, not the small, silver discs. LOL)