MP-3 users, don't you regret going into "audiphile" relams ?

[jsplice]

Just wait til you start getting into a high end loudspeaker setup....you think head-fi can make your money disappear? hahaha.....

 

[catscratch]

I'm not going to get into a DBT debate. Suffice to say that I use only lossless formats whenever I can.

I've sort of come full-circle in terms of enjoying lesser-quality rigs and poor quality files. Rather than not being able to tolerate bad sound, as was the case for the first 2 years or so of being an audiophile, I've simply changed my perspective on sound as a whole. Now, my definition of "good" sound is in the audiophile realm, my definition of "bad" sound is definitely crappy consumer gear - but I can still listen to said consumer gear and enjoy my music on it if the time is right. I've danced like a maniac to some psytrance on my friend's crappy boombox in his living room, right after a long listening session with the Omega 2 beforehand. Did that boombox sound like crap? For sure. Did I enjoy it anyway? You bet!

It's important to overcome the addiction to discovering newer and better sound, since it is that addiction that very often fuels our spending, and prevents us from listening to crappy gear. You *want* the same sense of astonishment you felt when you listened to a serious rig for the very first time. You *want* to feel like you're re-discovering your entire collection all over again. Unfortunately, that feeling comes only a few times in your life, and never again, and chasing after it will cost you a pretty penny - and will probably make you very musically unhappy in the long term.

So, just get a rig that sounds good to you *now* and enjoy it for all it's worth. You may be cursed like me and hear flaws in absolutely every piece of gear you come across - but all that means is that you'll have to lay out a few grand or more on a top-end system. That sort of expense may seem absurd now, but after a few years of being an audiophile and trading gear, you'll be surprised as to what you accumulate. Chances are good that somewhere there is a rig that will make you happy, though it could take you years, and thousands, to get there.

In the end, it's all about the music, and if it isn't, then it should be. Discovering your rig gets old. Discovering new music is one of life's constant, and necessary companions.

 

[kintsaki]

Would you guys be interested to take a test?

I will create two files on the same song.
Encoding either fixed 220 Kbps mp3 or
no encoding at all.

During the song I will swithch twice for
example wav-mp3-wav in one file and
mp3-wav-mp3 in the other.
You will need to id them.

I have done this before and failed it.
I will do it again when Stax O2 arrives
next week with the following chain

Lynx2 XLR>XLR 717>O2 MRK I.

and I will have my 19 year old son
with his dog ears (compared to mine)
take the test too.

Then I will send the files to anyone
interested to take the test and run
statistics on the results.

If you want to propose a different arrangement
for the test let me know.

If you feel certain and would not bother to
take the test (assuming you are not preesed
for time) then I will refer you to my "Ulysses
and Sirens" thread and I will risk a guess
that you are not going to be back to Ithaka
in time to save Penelope.

PS

Lol after 7 years in Headfi I finally reached 50
posts status (Ulyssus ) and can now post on gear
for sale. My men you better tie me down and
do not let me free no matter what I do.
May Zeus help me!

 

[Sherwood]

I'd happily take that test, with the expectation that I will pass it.

 

[synaesthetic]

My ears are leaden, and therefore I don't generally notice, and when I do notice, I just rip at a higher bitrate.

Just because I don't have golden ears, however, doesn't mean I do not benefit from the sonic characteristics imparted by good equipment. I'm not an audiophile; my goal isn't perfect reproduction of the sound.

My goal is a pleasing sound, and I suppose that's why Head-Fi's been [slightly] less harmful to my wallet than "Shoe-Fi" or "Dress-Fi."

 

[HeadLover]

I am willing to take the test to!

 

[Shoreman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt_wants_hp890s_again /img/forum/go_quote.gif I noticed my iPod was still distorting on the bassier songs, such as Clint Eastwood by Gorillaz, so I went through and put all my albums onto my iPod in full quality AIFF instead of 320kbps AAC and now I have about 2gb left on my 80gb iPod. So yeah, I do regret being picky and needing non-distorting sound, especially with the unsubtle Panasonic HTX-7s and their extrovert bass response. The combination of AIFF, line-out on the iPod dock and my Pannys sounds good to my ears at last, so I'm happy enough with what I've got.

At the risk of stating the obvious, or reiterating something you're already aware of, you've wasted alot of space on your ipod by ripping to "full quality" AIFF. Ripping to ALAC accomplishes the same thing qualitatively and would leave you with considerably more space to fill with music.

 

[Diesp]

Since i started to rip my first CDs ('98), I sticked to the "standards" define by the MP3 community.
Now that I have my CD in V0 I can't tell the difference, but with old rips i could tell before I re-ripped them.

More than bitrates LAME has evolved, it's not what it was.

Now I've got so much benefits upgrading my gear that I'll never regret anything.

 

[Nocturnal310]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoreman /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the risk of stating the obvious, or reiterating something you're already aware of, you've wasted alot of space on your ipod by ripping to "full quality" AIFF. Ripping to ALAC accomplishes the same thing qualitatively and would leave you with considerably more space to fill with music.

thats right.

most people still dont know that all lossless sound same.. the compressed lossless is just more appropriate for ipod as it reduces the file size.

but it reads the same amount of data per second when played back.

 

[Shoreman]

Originally Posted by Shoreman

At the risk of stating the obvious, or reiterating something you're already aware of, you've wasted alot of space on your ipod by ripping to "full quality" AIFF. Ripping to ALAC accomplishes the same thing qualitatively and would leave you with considerably more space to fill with music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif thats right. most people still dont know that all lossless sound same.. the compressed lossless is just more appropriate for ipod as it reduces the file size. but it reads the same amount of data per second when played back.

Yes sir. Thanks for reinforcing the point. The fact that he used the term "full quality" may suggest that he is among those who still believe, erroneously, that there is value added by ripping to AIFF or WAV.

 

[progo]

Answering to OP's question: I don't regret. I can enjoy my MP3s just like I used to, but now I appreciate the lossless formats more than ever.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif thats right. most people still dont know that all lossless sound same.. the compressed lossless is just more appropriate for ipod as it reduces the file size. but it reads the same amount of data per second when played back.

not just the same amount - the same actual data, bit for bit, identical

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

MP3s also sound much better with good gear. Don't take my word for it, just listen.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoreman /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the risk of stating the obvious, or reiterating something you're already aware of, you've wasted alot of space on your ipod by ripping to "full quality" AIFF. Ripping to ALAC accomplishes the same thing qualitatively and would leave you with considerably more space to fill with music.

Better yet, use replaygain on mp3's or AAC's with a target of 89 dB and the distortion problem is gone, with a side effect of allowing the internal eq function without distortion, too.


Re: the OP: No, I regret nothing. I have a handful of ALAC files for a few albums, but they all remain unchecked and exist for storage only. I listen to high bitrate MP3 or AAC. I am not convinced I can hear the difference when paying close attention between a good encode and lossless, and when I'm not paying close attention there is even less point.

 

[nvkid909]

taking the OP's question literally, i'm tempted to think it was asking: "you non-audiophile types - don't you regret daring to venture into the audiophile world, this forum, even?", i think this because i see mp3 as being outdated compared to AAC, but obviously people can still get the best of mp3, with lame etc... but still, 'mp3 users' conjures up this image of people at work who have just discovered DAPs & keep asking how many mp3s i can get on mine. i use AAC.

i don't think it's something to regret though, it's personal like religion, some take it to extremes, while others will progress forwards albeit slower & out of their own curiosity. whatever, forwards is forwards.