Lou Reed talks about the crappy SQ of mp3's
Mar 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM Post #46 of 65
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


Hmm, so absolute is your response, though not sure am I of this notion nor your confidence.
I have to disagree with your utilization of the word ignorance from experience myself on this topic, and with passing every similar test conducted.

The differences higher up the chain are marginal with audiophilia, and it is in this very nature of "subtle" that most post and listen to higher end gear.

Also, to the OP, this was posted in the incorrect forum.
 
Mar 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM Post #47 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dougie /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Now maybe we can get back to arguing whether the 16bit 44kHz CD format is really "lossless".


Funny, the bar gets lower and lower doesn't it?
confused.gif


Dave
 
Mar 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM Post #49 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Audax /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.


There's so many flawed statements, I forgot what to comment about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.



Your opinion is duly noted.
rolleyes.gif
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.


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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.




I agree with febs absolutely. Sorry I'm poor and can't just throw $350 down the drain for a 160 gb iPod and another $200 to buy a 500 gig hdd that still isn't enough to store all my music. Sorry I have to pay for gas, food, and other things that are neccessary to my well being. I've tried lossless plenty of times to come to peace of mind, and even on speakers I can't tell the difference between 256, 320 and lossless. So you sir, must be the ignorant one. (not directed at you febs, just the other one). I can guarantee that 95% of my music collection is legal. But you can still buy music and it be downloaded...
 
Mar 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM Post #50 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by pez /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I agree with febs absolutely. Sorry I'm poor and can't just throw $350 down the drain for a 160 gb iPod and another $200 to buy a 500 gig hdd that still isn't enough to store all my music. Sorry I have to pay for gas, food, and other things that are neccessary to my well being. I've tried lossless plenty of times to come to peace of mind, and even on speakers I can't tell the difference between 256, 320 and lossless. So you sir, must be the ignorant one. (not directed at you febs, just the other one).


I also agree, and not only from a financial standpoint. The point of an MP3 player is portability, and I find the 160GB iPod just too big to carry comfortably when I also have a smartphone, wallet, and a keychain with 10 keys and a fob for my car. Something like a Nano is absolutely worth sacrificing storage for physical size, but with 8GB there is little room for lossless files.
 
Mar 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM Post #51 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by dgbiker1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I also agree, and not only from a financial standpoint. The point of an MP3 player is portability, and I find the 160GB iPod just too big to carry comfortably when I also have a smartphone, wallet, and a keychain with 10 keys and a fob for my car. Something like a Nano is absolutely worth sacrificing storage for physical size, but with 8GB there is little room for lossless files.


I put my DAP in one of the pockets inside my jacket.

To contribute to this thread, my bare minimum is 192kbps, as that's where I can't tell the difference between lossless files and it. Sorry if my ears suck.
 
Mar 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM Post #53 of 65
You can think of Lou Reed's comments as the analogue of complaining about the standard Apple Ibuds without taking note of the many fine products discussed on this forum. He might be talking about 96 or 128kbps and may never have heard of or listened to mp3's that are well north of what is the norm out there in the real world. Just my 2 yen.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM Post #54 of 65
Mr. Reed should be more concerned with how recordings are "mastered" these days than with format or bitrate.

Format and bitrate are way down on the food chain of what is important to audio quality.
Hot compressed loud mastering is at the top.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:11 AM Post #55 of 65
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.


qft * over 9000.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:21 AM Post #56 of 65
I feel there is absolutely no need to upgrade from quality encoded 320kbps. There will be many other more obvious flaws in the chain before than the difference between 320kbps and flac.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:23 AM Post #57 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Surfer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Mr. Reed should be more concerned with how recordings are "mastered" these days than with format or bit rate.

Format and bit rate are way down on the food chain of what is important to audio quality.
Hot compressed loud mastering is at the top.


True that, I have some older mp3's that I still have in 128kbps or around that and they still sound good because the mastering of the track was so well done. I wish more hip-hop was better recorded because even at high bit rates some albums still sound like Sh*&.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:40 AM Post #58 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Audax /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In my opinion mp3 format is for ignorants or poor people.


Best... quote... ever.
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51 AM Post #59 of 65
Originally Posted by Audax
In my opinion mp3 format is for ignorants or poor people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Best... quote... ever.


That's a real winner alright.
rolleyes.gif
 
Mar 18, 2008 at 1:14 AM Post #60 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvain /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I put my DAP in one of the pockets inside my jacket.

To contribute to this thread, my bare minimum is 192kbps, as that's where I can't tell the difference between lossless files and it. Sorry if my ears suck.


I guess mine suck too. I'd feel bad about it but I'm too busy listening to music to worry about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top