[pez]

If you convert something, that automatically makes it lose it's quality, but if you rip a track off a cd into VBR mp3 and lossless, you won't hear a difference. I have healthy ears, I just went to my local audiologist lately as a matter of fact, and he still tells me that my ears are very sensitive to mid range. Some test a while back said that only 1-10 people could tell the difference and that was based on just pure luck. Like I said, 5-figures (as in speakers, good recievers, and good cdp's...not like most mediocre mp3 player dacs). Most people say it's better based on ignorance, even if they want to be ignorant about being ignorant.

 

[dcstep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngsm13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. You would utterly fail a blind ABX test, I guarantee it. Any "difference" you hear is more than likely ignorance showing through... or justifying the superiority you think you hear. The differences are subtle at best. nG

You say that as if you've participated in double-blind ABX tests. I doubt it. I have and I've identified things as esoteric as different guitar cables and different power cords. Once you realize what you're listening for, it's fairly easy.

Just so you know, I'm an "old fart" musician that's been playing 50+years. Even with reduced hearing the training from playing and hearing live music constantly helps differentiate sounds.

After listening to my system my daughter (21 years old) is pissed that she's wasted so much on crappy lossy files. Storage is cheap.

Dave

 

[facelvega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good replies. I didn't read the link but do I care what Mr. Reed thinks? answer: no

Why do you contribute text for us to scroll through when you refuse to even make the effort to read the article this thread was meant to talk about? You don't care about what Lou Reed says? Fine, but that's no excuse for trolling, and making snide comments on a thread the content of which you haven't bothered to read is the definition of trolling.

For those who actually read the article, who wouldn't agree with Lou Reed that digital formats have had their negative impacts on common sound quality? When he says we need to insist on higher quality, I think he'd be willing to say that someone encoding his own V0 LAME is doing just that. But there are plenty of people out there "happily" listening to 64 or 128kbps from their laptop speakers who assume that they are hearing the music just fine, and why shouldn't a musician take the chance to speak out against that?

 

[dcstep]

Let me correct, I've done bline ABX testing, not double-blind.

Dave

 

[huy_ha]

I don't quite understand why there is so much negativity shown when a musician, or anyone who cares about sound quality, points out that people are choosing convenience over quality, which I took to be the meaning behind Lou Reed's statement in that article. We, here at head-fi, spend gobs of money on trying to achieve the highest fidelity sound reproduction that our wallets can afford, yet there is backlash against a musician who says that the masses aren't prioritizing the fidelity of the music they're listening to, which appears to be true. It's akin to people who tell me that I've wasted my money on good headphones because they can't hear the difference (or don't care) and are convinced that I shouldn't be able to, either.

I don't know that I would "pass" a double blind test (though that's not how I listen to music). Sometimes I am not satisfied with an mp3 because it seems flat, or the cymbals sound out of whack, or the bass is flabby. Sometimes I wonder if it's all in my head. What I do know is that there have been real improvements when I invest in upgrading equipment to play my CDs and LPs, all in the search for higher fidelity. My investment in things designed to play mp3 files has been about convenience (portability).

The trained musicians I know, especially those who play un-amplified instruments, care deeply about how their recordings are reproduced. They want you to hear what they intended. If you can hear the difference in formats, I say more power to you. If you can train yourself to hear the difference, more power to you. If you then endorse the format that you find to be the highest fidelity, the most true to the music, then more power to you. If you find that a well produced mp3 is indistinguishable from an SACD in your playback setup, then maybe your search for higher fidelity is over.

As for the quality of recording, I agree, the public and the producers should demand better recording, mixing, and mastering. I don't see it as an either/or situation, though. Better for all if both the production and the playback were improved.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcstep /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let me correct, I've done bline ABX testing, not double-blind. Dave

ABX might not be DBT, but it is a blind test. You don't know what X is.

I've failed every ABX test I've taken, which makes me happy to listen to 120 VBR AAC on my iPod. Even if I passed the ABX tests, I'd probably put the same thing on my iPod, because I listen to it on mass transit, air planes, cutting the grass, etc. Not environments that are conducive to hearing subtle differences.

At other times I listen to lossless, just because I have it as an archive on my computer.

 

[dcstep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif ABX might not be DBT, but it is a blind test. You don't know what X is. I've failed every ABX test I've taken, which makes me happy to listen to 120 VBR AAC on my iPod. Even if I passed the ABX tests, I'd probably put the same thing on my iPod, because I listen to it on mass transit, air planes, cutting the grass, etc. Not environments that are conducive to hearing subtle differences. At other times I listen to lossless, just because I have it as an archive on my computer.

At least you're archiving at a level that won't seem a waste later on, when you might listen in more resolving environments.

Dave

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by huy_ha /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't quite understand why there is so much negativity shown when a musician, or anyone who cares about sound quality, points out that people are choosing convenience over quality, which I took to be the meaning behind Lou Reed's statement in that article. We, here at head-fi, spend gobs of money on trying to achieve the highest fidelity sound reproduction that our wallets can afford, yet there is backlash against a musician who says that the masses aren't prioritizing the fidelity of the music they're listening to, which appears to be true. It's akin to people who tell me that I've wasted my money on good headphones because they can't hear the difference (or don't care) and are convinced that I shouldn't be able to, either. I don't know that I would "pass" a double blind test (though that's not how I listen to music). Sometimes I am not satisfied with an mp3 because it seems flat, or the cymbals sound out of whack, or the bass is flabby. Sometimes I wonder if it's all in my head. What I do know is that there have been real improvements when I invest in upgrading equipment to play my CDs and LPs, all in the search for higher fidelity. My investment in things designed to play mp3 files has been about convenience (portability). The trained musicians I know, especially those who play un-amplified instruments, care deeply about how their recordings are reproduced. They want you to hear what they intended. If you can hear the difference in formats, I say more power to you. If you can train yourself to hear the difference, more power to you. If you then endorse the format that you find to be the highest fidelity, the most true to the music, then more power to you. If you find that a well produced mp3 is indistinguishable from an SACD in your playback setup, then maybe your search for higher fidelity is over. As for the quality of recording, I agree, the public and the producers should demand better recording, mixing, and mastering. I don't see it as an either/or situation, though. Better for all if both the production and the playback were improved.

Well said, and obviously I concur and have been saying so !!!

Each and every musician who comes forth and calls for higher quality software formats, mastering and mixing, without compression of their art by the middlemen between all of us and the art being produced, can only be good for those of us who have bought high resolution reproduction gears. It will play fine on low resolution gear, however not visa-versa.

 

[dgbiker1]

I wouldn't care if Jesus himself walked up to me and told me MP3s suck. I can't tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless on my system regardless of what anyone says. Talk to the hand Lou Reed!

 

[globiboulga]

There is absolutely no doubt that the standard 128kb mp3 sounds dull compared to an amped lossless. There is also no doubt that iphone sounds **** compared to my Cowon. And while I would probably fail a blind test, I know still that lossless music played on hi-fi equipment 'feels' better. The complete harmony, the 'wow' effect that jumps to you... All that.

So yes, I am concerned about mp3 **** quality, not because I can hear the difference but because we'll end up having crap recording, with crap engineering, with crap musiciens... because no one cares. The death of hi-fidelity will mean the death of quality recordings. The advent of iPods already reinforced that particularly worrying trend and without some care, production will continue to focus on quantity (to edge risk), rather than quality and music interest. Hell yeah, I'd love 5.1 recordings of music to feel in the middle of things. Do you think one cares about doing that properly? There's no innovation in music. The most retrograde art of all... Ooops, sorry, it's certainly not an art anymore...

So forget about the debate about whether you can hear the difference or not. Soon, you won't even have the choice.

 

[facelvega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't care if Jesus himself walked up to me and told me MP3s suck. I can't tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless on my system regardless of what anyone says. Talk to the hand Lou Reed!

Did you read either what Lou Reed said or what others have said at length in this thread?

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't care if Jesus himself walked up to me and told me MP3s suck. I can't tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless on my system regardless of what anyone says. Talk to the hand Lou Reed!

Wow...

 

[dgbiker1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you read either what Lou Reed said or what others have said at length in this thread?

I have read both. Lou Reed said:
"you can get almost any song in the world as an MP3, and I suppose if you like it, you can go out and try to find a version you can actually listen to--if you like good sound"
I get a good portion of my songs as 320kbps MP3 from 7digital. I've compared music on CD (specifically Pink Floyd's 24k gold remaster of DSOTM), ripped to lossless, and ripped to 320kbps MP3 and I can't hear any difference. I interpreted Reed's comment as saying that MP3 is good for finding new music, but that you should only really listen to your music on other formats (Don't know which he likes) to get "good sound." IME CDs don't sound any better than well encoded MP3.

I think his phrase stating "they've got to bring up the standard" is open for interpretation, and I probably interpret it differently than most did. I think most people read that as 128kbps is/was the standard bit rate for online distribution and the bit rate should be increased- which I agree with, but I haven't seen 128kbps sold anywhere in a long time. When I read "the standard" I think of the standardized algorithms employed to encode the music as an MP3 and bit-rate as only a parameter in the encoding process. So when I read "improving the standard" my interpretation is that the algorithms used to encode MP3s needs to be changed, basically that we need to use another encoding method- and I disagree with that.

 

[choomanchoo]

Who's Lou Reed?

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choomanchoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who's Lou Reed?

exactly!