[The Pieman]

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. 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.

x24.

Why are people bagging this? The more recognised musicians that have a go at the recording industry about the lack of quality the better. I am really surprised there is a debate on Head-Fi about this.

cheers
Simon

 

[Febs]

Quote:

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

You can try a true double-blind ABX test here:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/pu...r-ears-250237/

Be sure to post your results. All of the people who can so easily hear the night and day difference between well-encoded MP3s and lossless seem to be underrepresented in the test.

 

[Audax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif Keep in mind they are probably talking about 128k mp3s, which were the "cd quality" standard for a long time.

hahahah i want to see your sources , because i have cd's over 20 years old and they sound better than stupid 128k mp3. back in the days you had to be careful when buying your cd's because of different methods of recording. Who remembers the AAA, DDD labels at the back of their albums ??

How old is your cd collection ?

Let alone losers who never bought an album in their entire life and leeched everything from the net. Why do audiophiles still use lossy formats ? Nowadays an ipod can store up to 160 Gb of music and a 100 $ HD up to 750 Gb. Is their still a need for higher compressed formats ?

In my opinion mp3 format is for ignorants or poor people. And i agree with lou reed and will go further by saying that Internet is killing the music industry as we know it but it also kills sound quality.

 

[BigJohn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Give me a well encoded mp3 of a well mastered album over a FLAC of a compressed victim of the loudness war any day of the week.

Apples and oranges mate!

 

[BigJohn]

I go as far as to say that; "everybody who isn't agreeing with Lou, is probably a music lover, but not a hifi enthousiast"
The hifi enthousiasts I know all want the best possible sound reproduction, wether they can constantly hear the difference or not.
Usually it's only with the better (known) recordings that certain differences become noticed, but there are differences.
If there where no differences why bother withe the upgrade of your hifi set?
Be that listening through loudspeakers or an headphone...
I hear people here talking about the "huge" differences between two allmost identical sounding headphones, when all they use to discern that difference is mp3's...
Give me a break!
I am pretty down to earth about all this stuff, but you gotta stay realistic!

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let alone losers who never bought an album in their entire life and leeched everything from the net. Why do audiophiles still use lossy formats ? Nowadays an ipod can store up to 160 Gb of music and a 100 $ HD up to 750 Gb. Is their still a need for higher compressed formats ?

Yes. I provided a more detailed response to this post earlier, but for some reason, my post appears to have been deleted. But it was the same response I've given in the past:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/wh...ml#post3929739

In a nutshell, (1) there is no audible difference to me between well-encoded MP3s and lossless files on a portable player, (2) storage space on portable players is limited, and (3) therefore, it makes no sense to me to waste space and battery life on the portable player by using lossless.

Quote:

In my opinion mp3 format is for ignorants or poor people. And i agree with lou reed and will go further by saying that Internet is killing the music industry as we know it but it also kills sound quality.

Your opinion is duly noted.

I can assure you, however, that I am neither ignorant nor poor. And killing the music industry as we know it is not necessarily a bad thing, though that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Audax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif In a nutshell, (1) there is no audible difference to me between well-encoded MP3s and lossless files on a portable player, (2) storage space on portable players is limited, and (3) therefore, it makes no sense to me to waste space and battery life on the portable player by using lossless.

I disagree on point (2). Space is limited, fair enough, but 160 Gb is about 3000 .Wav files and that's close to 175 hrs of music. Do you really need more storage capacity ? i own a 30gb Ipod with 600 wav files on it, to be honest with you, it is more than enough. Your point of view does make sense if the "nutshell" (rofl) is Flash memory based.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audax /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree on point (2). Space is limited, fair enough, but 160 Gb is about 3000 .Wav files and that's close to 175 hrs of music. Do you really need more storage capacity ? i own a 30gb Ipod with 600 wav files on it, to be honest with you, it is more than enough. Your point of view does make sense if the "nutshell" (rofl) is Flash memory based.

More than enough for you, it's not more than enough for me. I like the idea of having all of my library on my iPod. With lossless, I have less than half. Also storage space is not the only consideration. With the iPod, lossless playback chews up the battery, which is not OK with me. And before anyone says don't use an iPod, there's no other player that anyone has been able to point out to me that can hold my library and play gapless. I listen to a lot of music that required gapless playback. It's my most important feature.

 

[CarbonTi]

Head-fi is a site normally visited by people that are interested and care about music & sound quality. Am I correct so far? So why the hissy fit about a musician that makes comments about standing up for better quality recordings from the record companies? I'd surmise this would have been the last place a statement that MP3's are part of the problem of low quality sound would be criticized.

IMHO I think Lou Reed was also commenting that the record co.'s foist junk on the public and artists who are stuck having their work put through the meat grinder by the record co.'s.

MP3's are fine for the purpose of portable audio, although in a world of 80gb ipod's the benefits of file compression through lossy formats is less an issue. But anyone paying full price for a lossy MP3 either in 320 or 128kbs is buying a diluted product. The average consumer doesn't know the difference. However, the Head-fi crowd is neither unsophisticated nor unaware or lossy vs. lossless.

This has nothing to do with how expensive a rig is owned, or whether you can/cannot hear the difference in FLAC/MP3 or your like or dislike of Lou Reed as a musician. But if some of the arguments are that it's OK to buy lossy file music files, well I just don't understand the logic. Better to demand the highest quality sound files for which we spend money on and then dumb it down to your own needs in the privacy of your own home.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audax /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree on point (2). Space is limited, fair enough, but 160 Gb is about 3000 .Wav files and that's close to 175 hrs of music. Do you really need more storage capacity ? i own a 30gb Ipod with 600 wav files on it, to be honest with you, it is more than enough. Your point of view does make sense if the "nutshell" (rofl) is Flash memory based.

I have several 2 GB flash memory players, so space is indeed an issue.

It's fine with me if you want to use .wav files on your iPod. I will not call you names for making a choice that works for you (even though, from my point of view, the decision to use .wav instead of ALAC is questionable for several reasons). But please do not call me an "ignorant" for choosing to use MP3 in a scenario that you yourself acknowledge makes sense.

 

[Cry Havoc]

It's interesting to note that people are discussing the issue of lossless vs. mp3 on an iPod and debating about where the line between convenience and "cost" (hard drive space) is.

My only thought on the matter is that if you are a REAL AUDIOPHILE like you claim and can only have the absolute best sound, an iPod isn't going to be able to accomplish that. It's a limited player, unless you've had it Imodded, and even then it cannot stand up to a home amp + player setup. I would not be surprised to hear the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and a lossless on a home setup with several thousand dollars or more poured in, but on an iPod? How often are you going to take an iPod into an environment that allows for crystal clear definition of the notes, anyway? Just walking down the street is going to pick up enough ambient noise to prevent at least a bit of the detail from being there.

Again, just my opinion, but I can't understand using a portable music player to attain audiophile paradise in any regard.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting to note that people are discussing the issue of lossless vs. mp3 on an iPod and debating about where the line between convenience and "cost" (hard drive space) is. My only thought on the matter is that if you are a REAL AUDIOPHILE like you claim and can only have the absolute best sound, an iPod isn't going to be able to accomplish that. It's a limited player, unless you've had it Imodded, and even then it cannot stand up to a home amp + player setup. I would not be surprised to hear the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and a lossless on a home setup with several thousand dollars or more poured in, but on an iPod? How often are you going to take an iPod into an environment that allows for crystal clear definition of the notes, anyway? Just walking down the street is going to pick up enough ambient noise to prevent at least a bit of the detail from being there. Again, just my opinion, but I can't understand using a portable music player to attain audiophile paradise in any regard.

Did you ever listen to an iMod before? Or maybe a Rio Karma, a TrekStor Vibez, a Sansa Clip? The bottom line with players classified as "portable" is that we know they won't sound as well as a super-duper home setup, but it is enough to quench our audiophile minds in many traveling situations. Believe me, sitting in an airplane full of business men who pull out their various Bose 'phones to listen through the headphone jack of their iPod with their low-bitrate songs irks me just thinking about what it sounds like.

Also, you'd be surprised with how iPods are used around here; for example, Wadia (Wadia Home Page) has the iTransport. I myself use the iMod as a home source, and many who have an iMod also have "backup" players for every-day usage scenarios anyway.

 

[dcstep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you ever listen to an iMod before? Or maybe a Rio Karma, a TrekStor Vibez, a Sansa Clip? The bottom line with players classified as "portable" is that we know they won't sound as well as a super-duper home setup, but it is enough to quench our audiophile minds in many traveling situations. Believe me, sitting in an airplane full of business men who pull out their various Bose 'phones to listen through the headphone jack of their iPod with their low-bitrate songs irks me just thinking about what it sounds like.

I'm one of those "business men" sitting in an airplane using my iPhone as a source. I DO use Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pros with Comply foamies, instead of Bose. My small travel rig has a lot to do with reducing bulk. I've got a fat briefcase full of laptop, digital-projector, business cards, hand outs and other crap. When I get home I've got an excellent single-ended tube rig with great analog and digital sources. The iPhone stays in my pocket while I REALLY enjoy the music. On planes it helps me pass the time while also screening out the noise of the plane and the pilot and attendants telling me stuff that I don't need to know. (I watch the faces of other passengers for signs of panic).

Bose is no worse than those crappy iBuds I see so many kids using. On a plane they're probably superior, due to the isolation program built in.

Dave

 

[Cry Havoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you ever listen to an iMod before? Or maybe a Rio Karma, a TrekStor Vibez, a Sansa Clip? The bottom line with players classified as "portable" is that we know they won't sound as well as a super-duper home setup, but it is enough to quench our audiophile minds in many traveling situations. Believe me, sitting in an airplane full of business men who pull out their various Bose 'phones to listen through the headphone jack of their iPod with their low-bitrate songs irks me just thinking about what it sounds like. Also, you'd be surprised with how iPods are used around here; for example, Wadia (Wadia Home Page) has the iTransport. I myself use the iMod as a home source, and many who have an iMod also have "backup" players for every-day usage scenarios anyway.

I think you misunderstand my meaning. First and foremost, I own an iPod, as per my signature. Secondly, my point was not that "portable audio is inferior so audiophiles should only listen at home", but that the quality you get from a portable setup is going to be inherently inferior, and I seriously doubt most players can take advantage of the difference between a 320 kbps file and a lossless, to say nothing of the battery drain or size differences already mentioned.

And, let's assume that you have the ultimate portable setup, something like UE-11s with an amp of your choice out to an iMod or a Rio or a Cowon iAudio. How often are you going to be in an isolated situation enough to make the difference worth having lossless on your portable player? I know I would probably have trouble distinguishing between 192 and 320 kbps on the public transit here in Chicago. For some, yes, they might need the ideal sound wherever they go. I just question if it is really necessary to have massive sound files on a portable, especially if you aren't toting around a player with 80+ GBs of storage space.

 

[dr dougie]

I think the main point here is that there really needs to be more and better options to obtain higher quality digital music. I don't need the 24 bit 96kHz masters but 128kbps mp3s do not cut it for me even on portables and it's a shame they have become a standard. It was cool to see flac and apple lossless at ghosts.nin.com. So good for Lou Reed for stepping up.

Now maybe we can get back to arguing whether the 16bit 44kHz CD format is really "lossless".