View Full Version : How to listen to high definition music
magiccarpetride
23-11-2010, 21:50
As I'm converting more and more of my friends to Logitech Squeezebox Touch, the questions are starting to pour in regarding the high definition music (24 bit/96 kHz). Since one of the advantages of the Touch is that it can play back high definition FLACs natively, I'm always reminding people that they should go and get themselves some high quality 24 bit tracks to enjoy.
But that seems to generate a lot of confusion and a lot of questions. Some people, after doing a quick back-to-back comparative listening to 24 bit vs. 16 bit tracks, complain that they can't hear any differences. Obviously, one needs to have certain experience when it comes to evaluating such material, so I'm starting to compile a list of things to keep in mind when listening to various digital formats.
First off, I believe that, in order to separate wheat from chaff, one needs to establish whether one is capable of distinguishing the lossless formats from the lossy ones. I found it rather surprising that I lot of people I know don't seem to be able to differentiate between a lossless track and the same track crunched down to 160 kbps. What that is telling me is that these people don't really know what to pay attention to when listening.
If you can get a person, who at first can't tell the difference between 160 kbps and a full blown lossless WAV/AIFF/FLAC, to gradually learn to hear the differences between the two formats (i.e. lossy and lossless), you stand a good chance toward coaching them successfully in hearing the differences between the 16 bit and the 24 bit formats.
Now, how to go about accomplishing that task? I've come up with basically two criteria:
1. Listening fatigue -- when listening for a prolonged time to an inferior format, one tends to develop listening fatigue. After half an hour or so of uninterrupted listening to a whole bunch of tracks encoded in lossy 128 kbps, one reaches a point when one feels completely saturated and tired. One needs to stop the session, get up, leave the room, do something else. If, on the other hand, one spends the same amount of time listening to the same tracks in lossless format, the fatigue will most likely not appear (all this, of course, assuming that the audio system in use is of a decent quality).
2. The ability to follow a single instrument -- start your listening session and then pick an instrument, any instrument. Say, a rhythm guitar, or a bass guitar, or a cello, or a ride cymbal, or a kick drum, etc. etc. Just as long as the chosen instrument is featured throughout the entire track, it doesn't really matter which one you choose.
Now, once you choose your instrument, lock in on it, and try to maintain your focus on that instrument alone, and try following it throughout the entire duration of the song. What you'll find is the following: on the inferior formats (i.e. lossy formats), after a while, you'll see that you'll tend to lose your chosen instrument. Suddenly, there will come a point when the instrument you've picked is going to blend in with the crowd, and you're going to lose it (that most often happens during busier passages). Maybe just momentarily, maybe temporarily, but the fact is that you'll find it hard not to lose it. And even if, through Herculean efforts, you manage to keep track of that instrument throughout the entire song, you'll find it very challenging to do so.
However, if you switch to the high definition version of the same song, and pick that same instrument and try to follow it, you will find that it's a breeze and that it doesn't really require much conscious effort to do so.
The thing is that, on a really good audio system playing really high quality, high definition signal, all the instruments and vocals are presented effortlessly throughout the duration of the performance. One finds it extremely easy to follow all these instruments at once, and hence one feels more engaged, more drawn into the heart of the performance. Often times, strong emotions take over.
Consequently, the listening fatigue is gone, and one can now sit for hours on end enjoying the listening experience.
Try having the same experience with a whole bunch of 128 kbps mp3 files!
The listening fatigue thing was a huge issue when digital recordings first came out, even pre-CD. For sure digital recording, mixing and definition levels are way better now but I still find what really works is a real musical event recorded all analogue. The joy of 50s/60s recordings played on original vinyl (not re-mixed via digital) is something that is making me increasingly frustrated with impressive modern recordings which don't satisfy in the same way. It's bit like low bitrate MP3, once you spot the difference it bugs you. I'm sure hi-def is the future but I won't pretend I'm entirely happy as we've thrown away so much that is great.
Not meaning to derail the thread, I'm sure it'll flow the way you want it to...I have a comment about being able to follow a single instrument.
This is something that seemed to come in with what I call modern recording techniques (modern being over the last 30 years or so....).
We are able to follow individual instruments because that's the way they are recorded - often as an individual instrument in a studio which then gets mixed with other instruments. If a recording instead is of a small group of instruments usually there will be noise gating used to ensure sounds from nearby instruments don't bleed into the mic for the instrument being recorded. Atmosphere / reverb is then added at the all important mixing stage.
Contrast the above to a recording of a real musical event, could be at a live venue or in a studio (probably somewhere with a realistic acoustic). Probably you won't be able to follow individual instruments because they bleed into each other as this is real music. Even though you can't follow individual instruments too well you should hear the music being played as a whole, it should hang together, not be dissected analytically.
I feel like starting the Campaign for REAL Music. Flogging a long dead horse though.
OK, some music, eg ambient is not a real performance and is fine if it's totally created in the studio.
Interesting observations Alex.
I read on various forums contributors extolling the benefits of file music in higher resolutions than redbook (16/44.1).
A few examples of the comments are “vastly superior” “significant improvement” “like night and day”.
Yet when the contributors who make such comments (not just on these forums) are questioned about exactly what differences they hear what you tend to get is “if you cant hear it you’re equipment is probably not resolving enough” or “you need to train yourself to listen for them”.
There seems to be some contradiction here. I didn’t need any training to tell night from day for example and I certainly don’t want to pay more than twice the cost of redbook for something I’m going to have to train myself to appreciate :scratch:
Perhaps it is my system and that leaves me wondering how much money I would have to invest to appreciate a medium that costs twice as much as what I listen to now. I have a reasonable laptop costing £800 new, a well regarded Dac costing over £500 with leads, an amp that cost close to £1200, thats before I count the cost of the mods and my speakers; well I don’t even like to think what they would cost should I have to buy replacements :eek:
I think I’ve spent enough and I want to hear that “night and day” difference now :steam:
Let’s face it, the differences in sound quality in bit rates and frequencies above 16/44.1 are small. So small in fact that when the average listener isn’t even going to notice, yet the exaggerated claims just keep coming. :mental:
I tend to agree with Clive, it’s the recording that matters most. Certainly a well recorded piece of music may sound “better” at an increased bit depth and frequency but not all 24/96 and above come from decent masters.
I don’t agree with Alex regarding being able to follow a particular instrument; this is going to depend greatly on the type of music you listen to. It is hard enough to pick out a single violin in a full orchestra listening live never mind after it’s been hacked about in a studio and then shunted through a lot of noisy electronics.
What you may find is the music has more depth and body and some frequencies are better represented; whether or not you can hear these frequencies will depend on the volume you listen at and the frequencies response of the system you listen through and the noise floor of your listening environment.
None of the differences are going to be immediately noticeable. If you are expecting less “digital harshness” whatever that is, I would suggest you looked to how your system components interact rather than hoping to cure it with hi res.
I personally don’t get listening fatigue with my system, but I’ve put an awful lot of time and effort trying to get a sound I can live with.
I don’t think there is much doubt that what differences there may be in higher res files can be heard better through a decent set of headphones. Not only do they reduce the listening environment noise floor but a good set of headphones will have the ability to reproduce frequencies higher than the usual loudspeaker. You do unfortunately lose any of the benefits in the very low frequencies.
Of course, I could just be deaf but at least I’m not daft :lol:
The same or similar applies to HD video, for example a std def DVD of The Day After Tomorrow is super clear but several HD films I've seen have been of poorer quality. If the original recording and mastering is excellent you get great results with std audio and video and better still with hi def, if the original poor or average then the it'll never be great.
magiccarpetride
24-11-2010, 17:55
Let’s face it, the differences in sound quality in bit rates and frequencies above 16/44.1 are small. So small in fact that when the average listener isn’t even going to notice, yet the exaggerated claims just keep coming. :mental:
The same can be said about the differences between 160 kbps mp3 and the lossless AIFF/WAV/what have you.
This is where the training comes in. At first, most naive listeners just cannot detect any differences between a severely lossy and a lossless version of the same track. It pretty much all sounds the same to them, because they hear and can recognize the instruments, the vocals, the tune, and can discern the lyrics. So what's all the big fuss about?
But, with gentle coaching, it is possible to train them to start noticing the "night and day" differences. Indeed, to a trained ear, listening to a 160 kbps format is quite a lame experience.
Am I exaggerating? Are you capable of hearing the differences in sound quality between lossy and lossless? Be honest (at least secretly, when no one is watching, and to yourself).
I hope these friends are yours realise the cost of the equipment and insanity we share you are leading them towards. :-)
One other comment...just because you can hear differences clearly doesn't always mean that musically the differences are so significant. Analysis vs enjoyment. Of course analysis can be part of the the enjoyment but this isn't musical enjoyment. Working out what we as individuals listen for and find enjoyable is part of the journey and ultimately fulfilment which slows down the cost of upgrading.
One other comment...just because you can hear differences clearly doesn't always mean that musically the differences are so significant. Analysis vs enjoyment. Of course analysis can be part of the the enjoyment but this isn't musical enjoyment. Working out what we as individuals listen for and find enjoyable is part of the journey and ultimately fulfilment which slows down the cost of upgrading.
+1
magiccarpetride
24-11-2010, 18:21
I hope these friends are yours realise the cost of the equipment and insanity we share you are leading them towards. :-)
One other comment...just because you can hear differences clearly doesn't always mean that musically the differences are so significant. Analysis vs enjoyment. Of course analysis can be part of the the enjoyment but this isn't musical enjoyment. Working out what we as individuals listen for and find enjoyable is part of the journey and ultimately fulfilment which slows down the cost of upgrading.
I just did a quick math and the insane quantities of dollars I've dunked into my cars throughout the years completely dwarf the total money I've spent so far on audio.
And yet, all my cars end up betraying me in the end, they've all proven to be piece of shit products, while my audio system just keeps getting better and better, and is a gift that keeps giving.
So anyone who claims that we audio lovers are insane doesn't know what this is all about. It's about enjoying life, it's about enhancing one's self-esteem, it's about making new friends and discovering subtler pleasures in life. Priceless.
magiccarpetride
24-11-2010, 18:26
Not meaning to derail the thread, I'm sure it'll flow the way you want it to...I have a comment about being able to follow a single instrument.
This is something that seemed to come in with what I call modern recording techniques (modern being over the last 30 years or so....).
We are able to follow individual instruments because that's the way they are recorded - often as an individual instrument in a studio which then gets mixed with other instruments. If a recording instead is of a small group of instruments usually there will be noise gating used to ensure sounds from nearby instruments don't bleed into the mic for the instrument being recorded. Atmosphere / reverb is then added at the all important mixing stage.
Contrast the above to a recording of a real musical event, could be at a live venue or in a studio (probably somewhere with a realistic acoustic). Probably you won't be able to follow individual instruments because they bleed into each other as this is real music. Even though you can't follow individual instruments too well you should hear the music being played as a whole, it should hang together, not be dissected analytically.
I feel like starting the Campaign for REAL Music. Flogging a long dead horse though.
OK, some music, eg ambient is not a real performance and is fine if it's totally created in the studio.
True enough. Here, I'm not talking about real music, merely about the sound quality. It could also apply to the sound quality of a movie, not necessarily only to the sound quality of a musical performance.
“The same can be said about the differences between 160 kbps mp3 and the lossless AIFF/WAV/what have you.”
Well, I don’t agree with you Alex ;)
I think the difference between a compressed and low bit rate music sample and a non compressed redbook sample are relatively easy to tell apart and there are solid theoretical reasons why this should be so.
When it comes to 24 bit and frequencies above 44.1 things get more problematical in both the theory and equipment capability. You may be interested to work out exactly how fast 24/192 needs to be processed for example.
For some reason though I suspect the maths and theory isn’t of great interest to you and your happy to rely on what you believe you can hear. That’s fine, what’s possibly not so cool is your insistence that it’s a “night and day” comparison and everyone with a bit of intensive training is going to appreciate the difference should there be one.
Anyway, I’ll leave you to your audio listening training classes and go and enjoy listening to some music…..redbook of course :)
For some reason though I suspect the maths and theory isn’t of great interest to you and your happy to rely on what you believe you can hear. That’s fine, what’s possibly not so cool is your insistence that it’s a “night and day” comparison and everyone with a bit of intensive training is going to appreciate the difference should there be one.
Anyway, I’ll leave you to your audio listening training classes and go and enjoy listening to some music…..redbook of course :)
Nicely put Welder.
I liken it to UK HD TV. Yes some material is better defined but ultimately I want to watch something and I don't get fatigue from looking at lossy video - it is the material I watch and enjoy not the vividness.
magiccarpetride
25-11-2010, 21:05
“The same can be said about the differences between 160 kbps mp3 and the lossless AIFF/WAV/what have you.”
Well, I don’t agree with you Alex ;)
I think the difference between a compressed and low bit rate music sample and a non compressed redbook sample are relatively easy to tell apart and there are solid theoretical reasons why this should be so.
When it comes to 24 bit and frequencies above 44.1 things get more problematical in both the theory and equipment capability. You may be interested to work out exactly how fast 24/192 needs to be processed for example.
For some reason though I suspect the maths and theory isn’t of great interest to you and your happy to rely on what you believe you can hear. That’s fine, what’s possibly not so cool is your insistence that it’s a “night and day” comparison and everyone with a bit of intensive training is going to appreciate the difference should there be one.
Sorry, I didn't explain this properly. When I say it's similar to the differences in lossy vs. lossless format, I didn't mean in the sense of how much more information is there in the high definition format vs. the red book, but in the sense of SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE (something you seem to not be familiar with, if I am to judge from your replies).
So, in a nutshell, a person may not be able to experience (even though the same person may be able to MEASURE) the differences between a 160 kbps mp3 and a lossless AIFF or FLAC. That person may then claim that all this talk about lossy vs. lossless is baloney, which is cool, because where is the problem in that? If that person is perfectly content with converting all his FLACs, WAVs, AIFF,s etc. into 160 kbps mp3 files, more power to him. He will certainly save up big time on digital storage requirements. For him, it's a veritable win-win.
As far as deriding someone else's personal taste, I personally think it's tasteless. Yes, I'll admit openly, I do have a personal bias and a preference toward high definition formats, but that's just me. Same as I prefer Cabernet Sauvignon over Merlot. To me, the differences between the these two wines are "night and day". So if you've got a problem with that, I suggest you sue me! (or bite me, whichever you personally prefer)
Same as I prefer Cabernet Sauvignon over Merlot. To me, the differences between the these two wines are "night and day". So if you've got a problem with that, I suggest you sue me! (or bite me, whichever you personally prefer)
There I have a real problem. For supermarket wines I agree but when you are in good wine producing areas, eg Italy, France etc, they care far less about the grape and far more about the hill/soil and aspect where the vines are grown. Night and day becomes blurred. Probably due to too much wine.
Alex
Night and dull mid winters day
Night and sunset on a mid winters day
Night and afternoon on a spring day
Night and a mid summers day
All of which are night and very different days.
May I suggest a higher resolution of the differences in the day part of you metaphor, lest the phrase becomes meaningless and devalues your message. So a noticeable improvement becomes like Night and dull mid winters day whereas a significant enhancement could be Night and afternoon on a spring day.
To me and I suspect the majority of users of the phrase, Night and Day is absolute opposites, polar extremes. System off system on. Black and white, dead or alive. Truth or falsehood.
So as you posted
To me, the differences between the these two wines are "night and day". So if you've got a problem with that, I suggest you sue me! (or bite me, whichever you personally prefer) There is a third way just read it as a meaningless statement or misuse of a common phrase.
You may need lessons in the use of English in order to appreciate (or hear) the difference
I’ll start at the end and work backwards.
“As far as deriding someone else's personal taste, I personally think it's tasteless.”
For a guy who has poured derision and contempt on mp3 format and those that can bear to listen to it the above comes over a tad hypocritical Alex ;)
Oh arr, I’ve got a dog so I don’t need to do the biting myself :lol:
“Sorry, I didn't explain this properly. When I say it's similar to the differences in lossy vs. lossless format, I didn't mean in the sense of how much more information is there in the high definition format vs. the red book, but in the sense of SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE (something you seem to not be familiar with, if I am to judge from your replies).”
I don’t know of any other way to listen to audio Alex. It is in essence a subjective experience. Why you would assume I’m talking about what can be measured rather than what can be heard eludes me.
I only mentioned the science behind the technology because I find it helps to understand why I may or may not perceive differences in formats and equipment.
This isn’t a question of subjective v objective (a debate incidentally that makes absolutely no sense to me given the above) it’s a question of degree and description.
Night and Day, miles better, far superior; for most people such terminology has scale attached to it :scratch:
From my subjective experience the audible difference between redbook and 24/96 is apparent but subtle.
From my subjective experience the audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192 is insignificant.
Etc, Etc…….
It would also seem that a great many “audiophiles” agree with my subjective experience and those that don’t have yet to demonstrate that such descriptions such as yours are valid.
So Alex, if I were to play you on your system two identical tracks initially recorded at 24/192 with one dithered down to 24/96 I wouldn’t expect any hesitation in identifying which was which given your description. I can identify night and day in fractions of a second so I expect the same certainty and speed from you regarding hi res.
Of course, you are welcome to use whatever descriptions of your subjective experiences you feel fit.
Unfortunately if they bear little resemblance to consensus reality and generally acknowledged understanding of the meaning in that particular language, someone like me is bound to show up eventually and say “you’re talking bollocks”…………no offense intended, just my subjective interpretation ;)
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 17:11
Alex
Night and dull mid winters day
Night and sunset on a mid winters day
Night and afternoon on a spring day
Night and a mid summers day
All of which are night and very different days.
May I suggest a higher resolution of the differences in the day part of you metaphor, lest the phrase becomes meaningless and devalues your message. So a noticeable improvement becomes like Night and dull mid winters day whereas a significant enhancement could be Night and afternoon on a spring day.
To me and I suspect the majority of users of the phrase, Night and Day is absolute opposites, polar extremes. System off system on. Black and white, dead or alive. Truth or falsehood.
So as you posted There is a third way just read it as a meaningless statement or misuse of a common phrase.
You may need lessons in the use of English in order to appreciate (or hear) the difference
A+ for effort, F for results.
Hey, I have another homework for you -- I think you're splitting hairs.
I want you to go now and pick this phrase ('splitting hairs') apart and explain to me how it's very wrong to use it in a binary fashion.
Take your time, no rush, you have the entire weekend to work on this. I'll be expecting your report first thing Monday morning.
Ciao
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 17:12
There I have a real problem. For supermarket wines I agree but when you are in good wine producing areas, eg Italy, France etc, they care far less about the grape and far more about the hill/soil and aspect where the vines are grown. Night and day becomes blurred. Probably due to too much wine.
Now you're splitting hairs.
Now you're splitting hairs.
Well, yes and no, actually more no. There are lots of people buying supermarket wine just as there are lots of people buying MP3s or using lo-fi systems. There are relatively few people using genuinely hi-fi systems so one part of the split hair is significantly thicker than the other.
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 17:33
The listening fatigue thing was a huge issue when digital recordings first came out, even pre-CD. For sure digital recording, mixing and definition levels are way better now but I still find what really works is a real musical event recorded all analogue. The joy of 50s/60s recordings played on original vinyl (not re-mixed via digital) is something that is making me increasingly frustrated with impressive modern recordings which don't satisfy in the same way. It's bit like low bitrate MP3, once you spot the difference it bugs you. I'm sure hi-def is the future but I won't pretend I'm entirely happy as we've thrown away so much that is great.
There are people who claim that nothing can ever approach reel-to-reel tapes in terms of faithful reproduction of the music performance.
One thing to keep in mind here is that there are different types of music performances. Igor Stravinsky said that he was deeply disappointed, shocked and disturbed upon learning about all the dirty trickery that was being done by the engineers/producers during the recording of his symphonies etc. So even in the pristine world of live recordings, back in the golden age (1950s), we learn that some people were appalled by the degree of artificiality.
Seems like it's very hard to avoid the doctoring process that interjects between the live venue and what ends up being committed to magnetic/digital medium.
There's been some attempts to achieve absolute 'truth in recording' (the two-point philosophy touted by the so-called audiophile boutique publishing houses such as Chesky Records, Water Lilly, etc.), but to my ears, the end results are a mixed bag. Many of the Chesky produced tracks sound anemic, wimpy, and crappy (not to mention that the music tends to be bland and generic sounding).
I personally don't think there is anything wrong per se with recording each instrument separately and then mixing them all down into a somewhat coherent pile. The Beatles did it on "Sgt. Pepper's", and the aural results are marvelous. But of course, you really have to know what you're doing, or else you'll end up with a brown, foul smelling poopy mess on your hands.
There are people who claim that nothing can ever approach reel-to-reel tapes in terms of faithful reproduction of the music performance.
...........................
I personally don't think there is anything wrong per se with recording each instrument separately and then mixing them all down into a somewhat coherent pile. The Beatles did it on "Sgt. Pepper's", and the aural results are marvelous. But of course, you really have to know what you're doing, or else you'll end up with a brown, foul smelling poopy mess on your hands.
Yes R2R can be wonderful. Probably the best sonics of all.
The issue I have with recording individual instruments and then mixing them down does indeed depend on the music. Sgt Pepper's I would say suits mixing individual instruments, it involves a certain amount of sound effects.
A band playing a "coherent" tune will often exhibit interplay between musicians, this is lost when modern clinical techniques are used. To me it's the difference between my head being impressed with a modern recording vs my heart being lifted by an older recording which is in fact a performance.
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 18:27
A band playing a "coherent" tune will often exhibit interplay between musicians, this is lost when modern clinical techniques are used. To me it's the difference between my head being impressed with a modern recording vs my heart being lifted by an older recording which is in fact a performance.
I perfectly understand, as I'm in the same camp.
Don't you think that we should allow for a third type of a discipline? What I mean by that is that there may be some musicians who are capable of learning how to adapt to the instrument isolation, and are thus able to render an illusion of playing live, together with the entire band? This despite the fact that, while they are recording, the other band members may be chilling in the local pub.
Things evolve, things change, technological progress is not bypassing anyone. And yet, we humans are adaptable. We learn new tricks. Wouldn't you agree that there is a possibility that some musicians may grow a new set of skills under these new constraints which would enable them to fake musical orgasms in a really convincing manner?
I personally am leaving that possibility open.
Beechwoods
26-11-2010, 20:04
They might, but why should they? Music creation is a social thing, always has been! If the technology is dictating that people sit in boxes isolated from everyone else, that has got to be a bad thing for getting a good vibe going, no matter how proficient the performer :)
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 23:26
They might, but why should they? Music creation is a social thing, always has been! If the technology is dictating that people sit in boxes isolated from everyone else, that has got to be a bad thing for getting a good vibe going, no matter how proficient the performer :)
Agreed, however part of their agenda may be that they want to do a lot of post-processing of various instruments, and the best way to achieve that is if each instrument/voice is recorded separately, in an isolated booth, with headphones on.
Music making is a creative process, and there is no tried and true recipe on how to go about it. Same as visual art. At one point (150 years ago) the Academia was dictating the only true and tested way to go about creating art (i.e. the so-called easel painting), but it's been dismantled with the help of the ensuing generations of artists.
magiccarpetride
26-11-2010, 23:29
They might, but why should they? Music creation is a social thing, always has been! If the technology is dictating that people sit in boxes isolated from everyone else, that has got to be a bad thing for getting a good vibe going, no matter how proficient the performer :)
Also, thanks to the advancement in technology, it is now possible to cut a track in a long distance fashion. A buddy of mine who lives in Seattle was collaborating with me on a music project. He would cut the rhythm track in Garage Band and send it over to me in Vancouver, and I'd lay down some heavy guitar tracks on top of it, after which he'd add his guitar, and so on. Long distance overdubbing musical collaboration.
Him and I had a blast, I don't care what any of the purists say.
The Grand Wazoo
26-11-2010, 23:49
Sorry, but this theory of yours is just cods-wallop.
This is musicians being dictated to by what the technology or the producer's whim demands............or in the case of your long distance example, what is necessary due to circumstances.
Musicians are pack animals.
They enjoy playing together and sparking off the moment.
Come on, you can't seriously think that a real musician would choose to work that way, given the choice.
You & your mate may have had a 'blast', but you'd have enjoyed yourselves more if you'd been in the same room as each other, playing together.
Rare Bird
27-11-2010, 01:50
It doesnt work unless you all together as a collective.musicians get vibes from each other, things sometimes get created by odd mistakes within a session that can trigger off new ideas or directions. You only have to look at old footage of bands feeding off each other as they practice..
Also, thanks to the advancement in technology, it is now possible to cut a track in a long distance fashion. A buddy of mine who lives in Seattle was collaborating with me on a music project. He would cut the rhythm track in Garage Band and send it over to me in Vancouver, and I'd lay down some heavy guitar tracks on top of it, after which he'd add his guitar, and so on. Long distance overdubbing musical collaboration.
Him and I had a blast, I don't care what any of the purists say.
What also amuses me greatly is that I know for a fact that a lot of professional musicians (particularly a lot dance/electronica producers) were doing this 10 years ago when bandwidth was non-existant, and a lot of it was moved around in MP3 format - there's a high chance that parts of albums where you think you are listening to a CD (or the whole track in some instances) was actually compressed so it could be moved around the ether...
Him and I had a blast, I don't care what any of the purists say.
That's kind of the point. You had a blast. When I listen to music I want the blast too.
Just because you had fun making the music doesn't mean it sounds musical. If you were in the same room together making music and having fun then there's a greater chance the output will be good.
I have found Apple lossless format to make the most sense in both play pack and storage in 99% of cases.
MP3 has never been for anything other than mass storage of horrably compressed songs ,great for hip hopers where quality would really not matter very much anyway also perfact for boy band listeners and Hanna Montana fans.Now beond all that,most people are not going to notice much over Redbook or even close to it.
Few people really care when I'm playing a 200gram LP. on a really nice TT with my Audion Silver Night phono stage into an EL84 triode amp.Most people 99% just don't give a crap and thats ok too.So there not going to jump up and down yelling IGET IT!! when you slightly up the bit rate a little...The difference is still small to the human ear.
If I played guitar for them they would be board in 5 min. and start looking for an app in there cell phone to play a game or some shit,people are into showing how up to speed they are on there new techno gadget.
So listen to music for you and you alone and done worry about your freinds they may live on the same planet but are not in the same dimention and you can't get there from here.
And few upgrades to your audio will pay off nearly as well as a small upgrade to your brian ,like a glass of scotch before listening to get you in sync.
How very true Jeff, spot on.
Yes Scotch wine or in my case a Leffe helps gets the brain in gear for a music session Spot on Jeff
A+ for effort, F for results.
Hey, I have another homework for you -- I think you're splitting hairs.
I want you to go now and pick this phrase ('splitting hairs') apart and explain to me how it's very wrong to use it in a binary fashion.
Take your time, no rush, you have the entire weekend to work on this. I'll be expecting your report first thing Monday morning.
Ciao
Sorry that you do not cope well with people disagreeing with you or offering constructive criticism.
As there are 750 million English speakers in this world I wish you well in your choice of use of the phrase Night and Day.
I suspect other people listening to your equipment with you may be inclined to use less dramatic descriptions. Having said that I was listening to a friends Quad electrostatics (not unlike your Maggies) and found some source material painful so anything smoother might be a dramatic improvement to you.
I’m not at all comfortable with the whole idea that people need to be taught how to listen to music.
If that’s not what all this is about then it must be teaching people to listen to the equipment…..not too happy about that either.
When I’m sat in front of someone elses Hi Fi and told I should listen to this or that it usually means I’m listening to a system characteristics and not the music….kinda defeats the whole point of a good Hi Fi :mental:
It’s the systems that I’m sat in front of that get my feet tapping and puts a smile on my face that interests me.
Some of my favorite system haven’t cost the earth, often don’t look anything special and definitely haven’t needed any instruction on how to listen to them…they just draws you into the music ;)
Surely it's horses for courses here...
I can't imagine that Mike Oldfield cloned himself and had a jam session for tubular bells, likewise something like DSOTM was never a 1 take 'hit it' recording.
Alternatively something like 'Grinderman' could only work as a 'liveish' recording.
We can all conduct business meetings remotely, so why not musical collaboration?
e.g. 'The Earlies', who's albums 'These Were The Earlies', and 'The Enemy Chorus' were the result of transatlantic collaboration, and are excellent...highly recommended, just very rare to see them live.
Jac Hawk
04-12-2010, 17:09
In my oppinion it depends initially on how well the production has been, i'm sure most have you have come back from HMV or wherevever with your latest purchase, be it CD or any other format for that matter, and then been left absolutly cold by the recording, not that you don't like the music, you do or you wouldn't have bought it, but the production has been done by the YTS lad that day, it doesn't matter how much you mess with it, it will always sound crap.
i think all formats have a time and place, and i agree if your sat in your listening room immersing yourself in the music, you will hear the wateryness of the percussion on lossy formats and it will drive you mad, in my mind thats the main sonic drawback with mp3, all mid and high end sound seems to be slushy not crisp and precise, so you go for loss less.
However we don't always have the time to sit down with a glass of something nice soaking the whole experience in, and if you have the stereo on in the kitchen or car or wherever, to fill in the silence, you don't take as much notice of the quality so mp3 does a job.
At the end of the day it's all about the music, as long it put's a smile on your face, what the hell.
Personally its almost not worth the bother with most folks. I have tried and now find that apart from my father in law who is an audiophile no one cares or is even interested in hearing a difference. All the harder as the younger folks seem happy enough to use limewire etc for their free music which is almost always at max compression.
Back to myself i find the projection or image is the most affected as the quality of the recording increases. Once at a decent quality level instruments sound like ...well instruments so to speak but the air around them in the soundstage is where I notice the improvements. I'm baseing this on SACD v CD v MP3 as i have yet to listen to higher res audio.
Jac Hawk
04-12-2010, 19:10
Personally its almost not worth the bother with most folks. I have tried and now find that apart from my father in law who is an audiophile no one cares or is even interested in hearing a difference. All the harder as the younger folks seem happy enough to use limewire etc for their free music which is almost always at max compression.
Very true, the fact is high quality audiophile sound has not gotten any better since the digital revolution and to be honnest in most cases it's got worse, most people now use a digital source mainly because it doesn't take up any space in your house and needs no special looking after, like LP's do.
Most people nowadays download there music from iTunes or the like, and listen to music via headphones or on a cheap system they got in Argos, and they're not bothered if the track has depth, definition or gives the scence of having the band in your living room, as long as they can listen to Lady GaGa at ear bleading volume, that's all that matters.
Wake up guys, to most people the persuit of sonic excellence is unimportant, and people like us are the exception rather than the rule, long live the oddball:cool:
Reid Malenfant
04-12-2010, 19:16
long live the oddball:cool:
Woof woof woof 3129
Ali Tait
04-12-2010, 19:23
Can't argue with that.
I joined this forum as no one else understands me:grouphug:
You can have the best of both worlds,Apple lossless,WAVE,FLAC in a music server into a nice DAC is far less involved than my Turntable or RTR and sounds fantastic.
The difference is much smaller due to better DAC's better codecs and larger,faster hard drives.And modern LP's are digital pressings offering the same recording as a CD anyway so unless you have pre mid 80's recordings it's not somuch different truth be told.
Add the time, money and troubble it takes to keep vynil sounding good,record cleaning machein,brushes,zero state gun,styles cleaner,anti static sleeves ect..
I'm getting to old for all that shit,plus the room it all takes up.A small laptop hard drive will hold up to a tarabite. A wall of 1000CD's and a Wall of 1000 LP's Takes a hell of alot of space.All of that will fit on a 500 gig Hard drive in Applelosless.
comlpeate with cover art.
Jac Hawk
05-12-2010, 20:37
i'm i the only one, or is there anyone else out there that really hates apple, i got an ipod a while back and although i like it, i don't like the way apple seem to force you to use there software, i eventually managed to do away with iTunes and now have my ipod talking to Windows Media Player.
Give me flac and a pc anyday :cool:
Reid Malenfant
05-12-2010, 20:43
I joined this forum as no one else understands me:grouphug:
Join the club, we're all mad or we wouldn't be here :eyebrows:
As long as you enjoy your insanity then everything is ok ;)
Jac Hawk
05-12-2010, 20:59
here is a question. i've often wondered if you compress a track down to mp3, then turn it back into wav or flac will you regain what you have lost in compression, or is it gone for good?
Reid Malenfant
05-12-2010, 21:03
Once it's an MP3 it gone for good :uhho:
here is a question. i've often wondered if you compress a track down to mp3, then turn it back into wav or flac will you regain what you have lost in compression, or is it gone for good?
Its 'Lossy' Vs 'Lossless'
The lossless ones are FLAC, windows lossless, and apple lossless (all VBR or variable bit rate)
In addition there are better of worse MP3 formats, VBR being the best compromise for compactness and quality.
But as Mark says once it's been compressed to a lossy format it's gone forever...rip everything to FLAC and then convert it to MP3 for your mobile devices if you need to.
Come on Winamp, get a FLAC codec for Android quickly!!!
Jac Hawk, I totally agree with you. I have an iPhone 4 which is fantastic but a fkn pain in the arse when you have to use iTunes at every turn. I HATE APPLE !!
Hi 'spamnap',
Welcome to AoS :)
Could you please pop into the Welcome area and introduce yourself to our community, by providing your real first name, and basic location, system details and music tastes, as this is the required procedure for new members joining AoS.
Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Downloaded MP3's re-consituted into Wav do seem to sound slightly better, even if so much is "missing." There's a fair bit more to it though I reckon, as it's the bits that are chucked away may not be really important in the scheme of things, depending on frequency and level. It's probably nothing like as bad as "we" think it is tbh.
I have a favourite track that I downloaded from a band's "radio" on their home page. It was found in a shortly to be demolished studio on CASSETTE, heavily re-mastered using the band's custom mastering software and the resolution was at 128Kb/s. The ONLY way anyone would guess at the humble origins of this track is the brick-wall rolloff at 15KHz. The quality of the transfer I have is quite acceptable (darned good IMO) and would have made a wonderful bonus track on a re-release I reckon and no-one would know.
StanleyB
20-12-2010, 13:41
rip everything to FLAC and then convert it to MP3 for your mobile devices if you need to.
Rip everything to WAV, then convert. I question the claim that FLAC is lossless.
Rip everything to WAV, then convert. I question the claim that FLAC is lossless.
And use up twice the storage, and twice the network bandwidth...your grounds for questioning FLAC as a lossless format being?
Are you also including windows lossless, and apple lossless, if so you could have a yourself a lucrative lawsuit... ;)
magiccarpetride
26-12-2010, 21:53
Here is a two-point high definition recording I just did with my band:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7438755/Oh%20Sister.wav
This is the first take, no rehearsing, warts and all, so I'm not necessarily inviting any music critics to lambast our performance. But I wanted to offer for your examination how does a high definition (24 bit/96 kHz), non-doctored, unadulterated raw two-point recording sound like. I would in particular like to draw your attention to how smooth and warm the sound flows; none of the digital harshness that I can detect.
Or, it could merely be that I'm too partial to my band's sound, so I'm basking in that particular sonic experience. Whatever the case, I'm hoping someone might enjoy the silkiness of the high definition digital format offered here.
Cheers, and Happy New Year!
Here is a two-point high definition recording I just did with my band:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7438755/Oh%20Sister.wav
This is the first take, no rehearsing, warts and all, so I'm not necessarily inviting any music critics to lambast our performance. But I wanted to offer for your examination how does a high definition (24 bit/96 kHz), non-doctored, unadulterated raw two-point recording sound like. I would in particular like to draw your attention to how smooth and warm the sound flows; none of the digital harshness that I can detect.
Or, it could merely be that I'm too partial to my band's sound, so I'm basking in that particular sonic experience. Whatever the case, I'm hoping someone might enjoy the silkiness of the high definition digital format offered here.
Cheers, and Happy New Year!
Your story keeps changing, bask away.
Ahh, digital music. Like watching flies discuss which type of dog sh** tastes the best.
But it is convenient and the future, like McDonald's maybe?
StanleyB
27-12-2010, 10:14
And use up twice the storage, and twice the network bandwidth...your grounds for questioning FLAC as a lossless format being?
Are you also including windows lossless, and apple lossless, if so you could have a yourself a lucrative lawsuit... ;)
Does FLAC come in a Windows and apple variety as well? I never knew that.
I look forward to the lawsuit :).
StanleyB
27-12-2010, 10:18
Ahh, digital music. Like watching flies discuss which type of dog sh** tastes the best.
But it is convenient and the future, like McDonald's maybe?
You don't have to like digital music. Stick to your vinyl and cassette tapes. But there is no reason for you to try to take the piss with those of us who have embraced the digital format.
But there is no reason for you to try to take the piss with those of us who have embraced the digital format.
It's a joke Stan, chill out.
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 10:32
I thought it was funny!
The Grand Wazoo
27-12-2010, 10:36
Originally Posted By Mr Pig
It's a joke Stan, chill out.
Colin,
I think Stan is right - joke or not, that might be a bit offensive to some folks.
Also I remember that you said this:
I know this forum claims to be different but don't they all? ;0) The problem I have with forums is that you can't walk away from the dipsticks! If you were having a discussion at a party or something and some idiot kept talking rubbish you could just get away from him. On a forum though they are always there, in your face, every day, and things can get out of hand. The frustration of having to deal with people you just don't like can drive you up the wall. I've left quite a few forums because I just don't need the grief from forum bullies in my life.
.....which is kind of at odds with your 'flies' comment, don't you think?
joke or not, that might be a bit offensive to some folks.
Well, you could probably say that about almost any joke don't you think? Most are at somebodies expense, but this is only about taste in Hi-Fi.
And I thought it was obviously light hearted. I use CD myself obviously, my son used one of Stan's DACs for months and I continue to recommend it. I also said just the other day that I thought digital music was coming of age and had great potential, or something like that?
If you guys really are that tightly wound I can't see me being here long.
I thought Mr Pig's comment was ok. The McD part being particularly apposite.
Here's part of a recent posting from elsewhere by John Weslake, designer of the Da Capo, DacMagic and Audiolab's latest CDP and DAC. He's commenting on some digital characteristics.
Hardness, Sibilance, Fatiguing (you cannot read a book, while the system play’s softly in the background – you get annoyed and turn the volume down).
Loss of “Real” definition, Clapping audiences now sound like pelting rain, Cymbals / Hi Hats loose there “metalicness”, loud Choral passages in classical music sound like some form of intermodulation distortion is happening they get hard and bright, causing you to quince your eyes, waiting for them to subside…
Loss of space around each instrument / vocals… very narrow sound stage, does not wrap around you, just L/R between speakers…
The difference between the distortions that occur from turntables / Tape machines etc is that it also naturally occurs around us (noise, frequency response irregularities, ***Natural distortions***), while Digital produced “Distortions” do not naturally occur in our everyday environment, so our "brain" finds them far more offensive.
*** Yes a contradiction in terms granted, but I hope you can understand what I’m trying to describe.
As others have already commented, to its credit, CD did improve the quality of the lowest common denominator, recall the awful Amstrad “music systems”, plastic turntables, cheap ceramic cartridges, awful tape decks that miss-tracked, you could even hear the Wow and flutter, not to mention the collapse in high frequency response when Dolby C was engaged,… Yes the general public got a much better reply system with CD, but as with all aspects of life, the highest level of quality became mediocre at best.
Case in point, I grow up listening to a chorus of Ford Cortinas trying to start there Engines in the wet damp London mornings as everyone rushed to work – cranking the engines for minutes at a time. You could hear the engines cracking slower and slower as the battery's quickly run flat – it was a daily race between the inevitable outcome of the WD40 & a jump start…
However the rich neighbour next door would just jump into his Mercedes and whoosh he was gone… without ever a moment of hesitation…
However now days, cars like to Ford Mondeo are so much better quality (due to a large part to Digital car electronics) – that they are a have improved the “average” quality level, where as the quality of cars such as the Mercedes has just been reduced to such a point that you find yourself questioning if you where not a fool, and should have just bought a Ford instead…
That’s what I feel CD / Digital has done for HiFi…
Music is my life and passion – that’s why I’ve dedicated the best years of my life trying to wrought the very last ounce of performance from an uncooperative medium.
Digital reproduction can produce excellent results – just listen to some AAD recordings, and you shake your head and saying – if they can, why do so few others…
Colin's remark was definitely tongue-in-cheek (and I found it funny), but it helps if you know him and can read between the lines, as he doesn't use conventional smilies! :)
Anyway, folks, let's all lighten-up - it's Christmas! :cool:
Marco.
I can feel that wry grin spreading across my face again :doh:
It’s interesting that on a forum where “trust your ears” is the mantra anyone gets defensive about their chosen music reproduction medium and system.
The important word in the mantra that seems to get overlooked is “your” and that kinda rules out anyone else.
(Is that too subtle for the golden eared, dick and wallet waving brigade I wonder :rolleyes:)
The Grand Wazoo
27-12-2010, 12:13
It’s interesting that on a forum where “trust your ears” is the mantra anyone gets defensive about their chosen music reproduction medium and system.
I was making an observation, not a judgement. You may have missed what has been written at the bottom of my posts for some months.
Nope, didn’t miss that Chris :)
Surprising how little I do miss given my age, dodgy hearing, poor eyesight and dementia :eek:
(passes the chill pills round ;) )
(oops, forgot to add the ADD to the list. it's the games man, srsly, i blame the video games)
Surprising how little I do miss given my age, dodgy hearing, poor eyesight and dementia...
Not forgetting the incontinence.... :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
You been peeking in my bins again Marco? :eek:
No really, the nappies are my grandsons, honest :eyebrows:
Oh, I get it, you mean at the other end. Yep, caught out again, always suffered from verbal incontinence. I’ve still got school reports stating as much :lol:
Analogue distortion also naturally occurs around us, while Digital produced “Distortions” do not naturally occur so our "brain" finds them far more offensive.
Good post and it pretty much sums up what I feel about digital music, generality speaking. We don't have digital ears, as an audio engineer fiend once said to me.
However it's getting better and offers so much in the way of accessibility of the music and easy access to relatively high sound quality. It's not all bad ;0)
Here's part of a recent posting from elsewhere by John Weslake, designer of the Da Capo, DacMagic and Audiolab's latest CDP and DAC. He's commenting on some digital characteristics.
Hardness, Sibilance, Fatiguing (you cannot read a book, while the system play’s softly in the background – you get annoyed and turn the volume down).
Loss of “Real” definition, Clapping audiences now sound like pelting rain, Cymbals / Hi Hats loose there “metalicness”, loud Choral passages in classical music sound like some form of intermodulation distortion is happening they get hard and bright, causing you to quince your eyes, waiting for them to subside…
Loss of space around each instrument / vocals… very narrow sound stage, does not wrap around you, just L/R between speakers…
The difference between the distortions that occur from turntables / Tape machines etc is that it also naturally occurs around us (noise, frequency response irregularities, ***Natural distortions***), while Digital produced “Distortions” do not naturally occur in our everyday environment, so our "brain" finds them far more offensive.
*** Yes a contradiction in terms granted, but I hope you can understand what I’m trying to describe.
As others have already commented, to its credit, CD did improve the quality of the lowest common denominator, recall the awful Amstrad “music systems”, plastic turntables, cheap ceramic cartridges, awful tape decks that miss-tracked, you could even hear the Wow and flutter, not to mention the collapse in high frequency response when Dolby C was engaged,… Yes the general public got a much better reply system with CD, but as with all aspects of life, the highest level of quality became mediocre at best.
Case in point, I grow up listening to a chorus of Ford Cortinas trying to start there Engines in the wet damp London mornings as everyone rushed to work – cranking the engines for minutes at a time. You could hear the engines cracking slower and slower as the battery's quickly run flat – it was a daily race between the inevitable outcome of the WD40 & a jump start…
However the rich neighbour next door would just jump into his Mercedes and whoosh he was gone… without ever a moment of hesitation…
However now days, cars like to Ford Mondeo are so much better quality (due to a large part to Digital car electronics) – that they are a have improved the “average” quality level, where as the quality of cars such as the Mercedes has just been reduced to such a point that you find yourself questioning if you where not a fool, and should have just bought a Ford instead…
That’s what I feel CD / Digital has done for HiFi…
Music is my life and passion – that’s why I’ve dedicated the best years of my life trying to wrought the very last ounce of performance from an uncooperative medium.
Digital reproduction can produce excellent results – just listen to some AAD recordings, and you shake your head and saying – if they can, why do so few others…
Great post, Clive - my thoughts entirely! :)
Marco.
That would be one of those audio engineers that have been feeding us up sampled, over sampled, compressed, over loud offerings then would it Colin? :doh:
Honest mate, most of them are as deaf as posts. All those years of listening through headphones for hours on end to the latest X factor wannabes rules them right out of the golden eared awards.
You know what; I wouldn’t take listen to an audio engineer’s advice on anything to do with hearing, given the above. :lolsign:
Great post, Clive - my thoughts entirely! :)
Marco.
Hi Marco, it's interesting that a leading DAC designer is so forthright about digital, he's telling it warts 'n all. His great understanding of the warts mean that he can create really good DACs, his track record is pretty darned good. If only he could find a way to remove compression - I can dream but to no avail......
Whoa, before all you touchy feely, wow and flutter, scratchy needle vinyl guys start sucking each others dicks, any chance of bearing in mind that all the formats have downsides :rolleyes:
(Can I get away with such a description? :eyebrows: )
Better, well it’s a value judgment isn’t it?
Srsly, we could all get along so much better if we just acknowledged that as individuals we like different things for different equally valid reasons.
I’ve heard excellent systems of many types and what seems to get forgotten is the music; you know, the stuff all that kit is for, is pretty much all digitally recorded now anyway :scratch:
Srsly, we could all get along so much better if we just acknowledged that as individuals we like different things for different equally valid reasons.
If we did that and agreed with each other, there would be no point in forums such as this - the fun is in telling others of a different mindset (albeit subtly) that they're deaf!! :lol:
;)
Marco.
Ah, k boss, back to the bitch slapping then :ner:
Sorry to attempt to restore harmony. Wont happen again guv honest :lolsign:
Whoa, before all you touchy feely, wow and flutter, scratchy needle vinyl guys start sucking each others dicks, any chance of bearing in mind that all the formats have downsides :rolleyes:
(Can I get away with such a description? :eyebrows: )
Better, well it’s a value judgment isn’t it?
Srsly, we could all get along so much better if we just acknowledged that as individuals we like different things for different equally valid reasons.
I’ve heard excellent systems of many types and what seems to get forgotten is the music; you know, the stuff all that kit is for, is pretty much all digitally recorded now anyway :scratch:
Yes just about everything is digitally recorded nowadays, that's why old some 50s/60s records sound so frigging spectacular. Also with analogue it was really quite a chore to compress the sound so this was rarely done, with digital it's done routinely for mainstream music so this sets the standard that many people today think of a good quality.
I agree there are lots of issues to take into account with record decks too. The point is to understand any format's limitations and then design with these in mind.
I preferred the vision of flies discussing pooh.
Rare Bird
27-12-2010, 14:10
I think purchasers of DAC's these days are all intent on using Files as a music source, to be honest i've been listerning to files for sometime (only cos i'm on the pooter alot) but i've come to the reality that they don't have a patch on the standard CD in a machine.Why are people so obsessed with 24/96 i ask! With files i can analyse a recording, with CD in a machine i can just sit back & listern.
Ah, k boss, back to the bitch slapping then
Sorry to attempt to restore harmony. Wont happen again guv honest
Well before that, a quick kiss wouldn't go amiss (no tongues, mind) - c'mere.... :kiss:
Marco.
Geroff yer bloody pervert :ner:
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 14:27
I think purchasers of DAC's these days are all intent on using Files as a music source, to be honest i've been listerning to files for sometime (only cos i'm on the pooter alot) but i've come to the reality that they don't have a patch on the standard CD in a machine.Why are people so obsessed with 24/96 i ask! With files i can analyse a recording, with CD in a machine i can just sit back & listern.
I wouldn't say I'm obsessed, it's just that some of the well recorded high res stuff sounds better than cd. Good cd recordings sound good too though (all ripped to FLAC)
“Yes just about everything is digitally recorded nowadays, that's why old some 50s/60s records sound so frigging spectacular. Also with analogue it was really quite a chore to compress the sound so this was rarely done, with digital it's done routinely for mainstream music so this sets the standard that many people today think of a good quality.”
Yep, can’t argue with that Clive but I don’t want to spend my life listening to a handful of records from that era because they make my system sound good.
Some of us (yeah I know it’s hard to credit) like modern popular music.
(I’ve even got some mp3’s. OMG stone him!)
I’ve had vinyl and I liked it (thanks Katie Perry). Okay, compared to many vinyl systems I’ve seen displayed here perhaps it wasn’t the ultimate system by any means, but it sounded reasonable and despite the rumors, I ain’t deaf.
I really don’t find file audio any worse to listen to with regard to the quality of sound I get. I also think that file audio and digital equipment has greater potential for quality playback than vinyl ever had.
If I listened to classical music on my kit then I might have stuck with vinyl and valves but I doubt it.
The truth is I cant bear most classical music played on a Hi Fi coz to my ears every system I’ve heard so far ( and I have heard some really good vinyl systems) is so far away from the real experience that I just cant tolerate it. I don’t even like listening to my sax recorded.
The majority of pop music I listen to sounds better recorded than live and sounds just as good through file as it did on vinyl.
If the guys who are so concerned about audio quality want the best then frankly I would trash the record decks and get a reel to reel tape recorder; everything else is equally pants imo.
A final comment with regard to the forum and discussions.
I come here because I like the people and the atmosphere. I’m way beyond taking the this is better than that, or the intense audiophile bullshit seriously coz you’re all deaf and know nothing :ner:
I piss about a lot I know but check out some of the other “audiophile” forums…….
I mean, srsly, are these guys for real :mental:
I agree John about R2R and I would do it but life's too short for me to set up another source and get deeply involved with it. If I were not working and had spare dosh I would do it.
I do listen to plenty of modern music too but the music that really moves me is Jazz from the likes of Canonball Adderley, Mingus, Rollins, Brubeck, Getz, Charlie Parker etc etc. The emotion I hear in their playing so totally exposes modern mass market recordings that I get frustrated at being short changed by current recording techniques. Sometimes Inde music can work better as these labels can't afford the highest tech in recording methods. I believe digital per se can be excellent, it's how it's used that is the bigger part of the problem. I'm thinking here about the lack of bands playing together when recordings are made and also the loudness wars which result in horrendous compression.
Hi John,
You make some good points, many of which I'm rather too pished to discuss right now, however:
Yep, can’t argue with that Clive but I don’t want to spend my life listening to a handful of records from that era because they make my system sound good.
So why then have we allowed ('allow' is the key word here) standards of recording quality to fall so badly compared to those of the 50s and 60s?
Why was pop music in those days so well recorded, and the same stuff nowadays isn't?
After all, yesterday's Dean Martin is today's Christina Aguilera - it's all 'pop' music aimed at the masses, albeit from a different era (not 'audiophile stuff'), and yet Dean's recordings sound bloody amazing, and Christina's don't (even if you like her music)!
Look at The Beatles records - popular 'mass market' music of the day, but stunningly recorded. Compare that to how the pish in the charts is recorded now!
Why - what exactly has changed?? Why do we now meekly accept shite given to us that once we would've rejected???
I would genuinely like to know the answer to the above......!
Btw, I also listen to all sorts of different types of music - my tastes are extremely varied.
A final comment with regard to the forum and discussions.
I come here because I like the people and the atmosphere.
Nice one - and long may that continue. It's nice to see the friendly atmosphere and community spirit we strive to create actually working! :cool:
Marco.
I’ve tried very hard to like the type of jazz you mention Clive. I should have come to appreciate it because a lot of my friends are into it and the guys I know who also play instruments play a fair bit of jazz; they just chuck me out when they jam jazz coz I piss about.
I’m fond of a lot of big band style jazz which I have on reel to reel tape and don’t get to listen to anymore :(
But, the jazz enthusiast is not too badly served when it comes to hi def offerings and some of what I’ve heard has been excellent quality given decent Dac etc; not like live you understand but bearable, you can hear the breathing with the brass and the finger lift on the double bass for example. As for the emotion, well maybe one day.
Perhaps you might like this. It’s about as close as I get atm.
GHkN3ApllCs
That would be one of those audio engineers that have been feeding us up sampled, over sampled, compressed, over loud offerings then would it Colin?
No. The guy built and installed nightclub systems and other general electronics. They did stuff as varied as control boxes for Glasgow Airport and thermostatic control boards for Aga cookers! He was very down to earth and on the money with most things. For example he predicted a resurgence of valve amplifiers as an antidote for the harsh sound of CD.
He was a real character actually. They built all their own stuff including speakers and amplifiers and he once lent me a huge power amp to try at home. It had two volume knobs on the back and I asked him why they weren't on the front.
He said: "What you've got to understand about DJs is that they are just like normal people, but with their f****** brains removed!". He explained that DJs just turn everything up to max, irrespective of how atrocious it sounds. So they hid the knobs so they could set a sensible maximum volume when they installed the system and the DJ would think it was maxed out!
I wouldn’t take listen to an audio engineer’s advice on anything to do with hearing.
I'd be inclined to agree with that. Engineers tend to be very cold, logical types and often trust their lab figures more than subjective listening. I'm the opposite. I don't care how it measures, if it sounds good it is good.
I also think that file audio and digital equipment has greater potential for quality playback than vinyl ever had.
It might. What excites me is that it is possible for sites to offer downloads at high resolution very easily and at little extra cost to them. By doing away with the physical carrier you've removed the whole problem of selling the public a new music format!
The other thing is that in digital music the quality is dependent more on technology than engineering, as in a turntable say, which is cheaper! So I think the average quality of digital hardware will go up.
Perhaps you might like this. It’s about as close as I get atm.
GHkN3ApllCs
It's interesting but the scratching/slipping or whatever it is jars with me somewhat.
I don’t know the answer either Marco :(
It’s one of the reasons I get a bit pissy when the recording engineers and Dac manufacturers for example get on the forums and talk about Hi Fi and music like they have better hearing than the rest of us. It’s quite apparent from the crap they’ve been shoving at us for years that they’re deaf, don’t know shite either and care less as long as it sells.
Tbh, the audiophile community doesn’t help much. Too many of us it seems are prepared to pay ridiculous prices for what should be average quality in media and kit.
We talk various mediums and components up, way out of their actual worth bracket and then encourage those aspiring to some mythical standard to do the same.
There are a few “honest” component manufactures, my personal favorite is HRT for producing affordable quality without all the forum hype and media bullshit.
Not all modern recordings are terrible either so it must be possible to engineer a product at an acceptable quality within a budget. Try the album I nominated for 2010 by Natalie Merchant for example. Sure it may not be audiophile standard but if the majority were as well produced and recorded perhaps less of us who care about quality wouldn’t be reaching for the Prozac.
StanleyB
27-12-2010, 16:53
I don’t know the answer either Marco :(
It’s one of the reasons I get a bit pissy when the recording engineers and Dac manufacturers for example get on the forums and talk about Hi Fi and music like they have better hearing than the rest of us. It’s quite apparent from the crap they’ve been shoving at us for years that they’re deaf, don’t know shite either and care less as long as it sells.
Which DAC manufacturers are you on about?
Well Stan that depends on who’s asking.
If it’s StanleyB the audio enthusiast then you’ll possibly appreciate my point.
If it’s StanleyB the Dac manufacturer then I’m happy to lump you in with the others.
It’s one of the reasons I get a bit pissy when the recording engineers (and Dac manufacturers) for example get on the forums and talk about Hi Fi and music like they have better hearing than the rest of us. It’s quite apparent from the crap they’ve been shoving at us for years that they’re deaf, don’t know shite either and care less as long as it sells.
Not all modern recordings are terrible either so it must be possible to engineer a product at an acceptable quality within a budget. Try the album I nominated for 2010 by Natalie Merchant for example. Sure it may not be audiophile standard but if the majority were as well produced and recorded perhaps less of us who care about quality wouldn’t be reaching for the Prozac.
Which recording engineers as you seem more pissed by them?
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 17:20
I'd say that the recording engineers are only doing as they are told. It might be a different story if they were free to do as they please.
Hmm, I can see this may be hard work ;)
I could drag a few choice quotes from other forums from contributors who are apparently recording engineers and pick out from my music collection the names of the engineers who are responsible for some, to my ears, truly ghastly recordings.
However, it’s easier to say my comment is a generalization based on the current average recording quality I hear and apparently others hear as well.
Feel free to disagree ;)
I don’t know if that’s true Ali.
I was under the impression that the recording engineer had the final say in such matters.
If this isn’t correct then who tells the engineer?
Rare Bird
27-12-2010, 17:32
This is only my point if view & i know a lot will disagree but imho all modern recording sound crap compared to an old Analogue recording. All this high resolution & over clarity just makes me uncomfortable. They have destroyed most my fav albums with all this rubbish.
I don't listern to records for being arkward & don't hate the format, but there's just a lot of issues i can't be dealing with so leave vinyl well alone. As for Reel to Reel, glorious yes as long as it's a great machine.The majority of music i listern to seem to surface on CD taken from a well cleaned vinyl record which sound good & i can tell they aint been messed around with.The best sounds i've ever had is from a CD transfered to Reel To Reel, these machines can be a pain in the arse & just too inconvenient for some to use, blank reels aint cheap either, as with vinyl you really ned to have suplus cash to enjoy the use of. yeh pass on all this new mumbo jumbo
Something i'd like to demonstrate is CD-r made from a well cleaned vinyl record, Vs the same album shop bought on CD (digitally farted about with). It will become apparent that the CD-r will sound every bit the same quality as the original vinyl source it came from . which proves the CD is a brilliant format, because it is you know.where as the shop bought album of the same will sound dreadfull in comparison imho.
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 17:39
Hmm, I can see this may be hard work ;)
I could drag a few choice quotes from other forums from contributors who are apparently recording engineers and pick out from my music collection the names of the engineers who are responsible for some, to my ears, truly ghastly recordings.
However, it’s easier to say my comment is a generalization based on the current average recording quality I hear and apparently others hear as well.
Feel free to disagree ;)
I don’t know if that’s true Ali.
I was under the impression that the recording engineer had the final say in such matters.
If this isn’t correct then who tells the engineer?
Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me that most modern stuff is mixed for playing on Ipods, listening in the car, on crappy mini systems or Ipod docks, or on the tv, which is what 99.99% of people listen to music on. I think they compress so much in order to make it as loud as possible so it'll get noticed. I find it difficult to believe that any self-respecting recording engineer would do this deliberately. They can't all be cloth-eared or not give a toss!
It sure as hell isn't being recorded for the likes of us!
Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me that most modern stuff is mixed for playing on Ipods, listening in the car, on crappy mini systems or Ipod docks, or on the tv, which is what 99.99% of people listen to music on. I think they compress so much in order to make it as loud as possible so it'll get noticed. I find it difficult to believe that any self-respecting recording engineer would do this deliberately. They can't all be cloth-eared or not give a toss!
It sure as hell isn't being recorded for the likes of us!
Yes!
I'd say that the recording engineers are only doing as they are told. It might be a different story if they were free to do as they please.
Indeed, Ali. However, let's look a little deeper... Who's telling whoever is telling the recording engineers what to do, and why? Let's dig down to the source of the shit....!
What I'd like to know is the *root cause* responsible for the driving down of standards of recording quality, compared to how they use to be.
My view is that it's the 'easily-satisfied-with-any-old-shite' general public who are largely responsible by simply pandering, sheep-like, to whatever they are fed by today's commercial bandwagon! :rolleyes:
If folk had a bit more gumption and discernment, genuinely cared about quality over convenience, and were willing to think for themselves more, then I doubt we'd be in the situation we're currently moaning about!!
Marco.
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 17:48
Agreed Marco, it certainly seems commercially led to me, but there is also the sad fact that 99.99% of folk don't give a toss about how something sounds. We can't expect the recording industry to cater for probably less than 0.1% of the population.
I do think standards were a lot higher in the past compared to now.
Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me that most modern stuff is mixed for playing on Ipods, listening in the car, on crappy mini systems or Ipod docks, or on the tv, which is what 99.99% of people listen to music on. I think they compress so much in order to make it as loud as possible so it'll get noticed. I find it difficult to believe that any self-respecting recording engineer would do this deliberately. They can't all be cloth-eared or not give a toss!
Yes, but the general public you're referring to used to listen to their records on old mono Dansette record players, and the like - hardly 'hi-fi sources', yet the quality of recordings on the records themselves was superb, so although I know where you're coming from, I'm afraid that argument far from tells the full story....
Heck, even old 78s sound fantastic (in terms of recording quality), if you've got the right equipment today to hear them properly - and look at the 'lo-fi' gear that would've been used in their day to play those back!
No, I'm afraid we've become victims of the 'quality over convenience' culture of today's 'throw-away' society. No-one values things anymore like they once did - end of - and that includes quality recordings of music, regardless of the shenanigans the music industry now gets up to. Deep down, it's the people themselves that are the problem.
Basically, you get what you deserve!
Marco.
Something happened when CD came along (sure 70's vinyl also had it's quality issues due to the then oil crisis).
With digital it became easy to compress and easy to "manufacture" musak. A generation have now grown up with highly compressed music that to them sounds right as it's all they know. Also with far less "critical" listening today music is played as a background in bars, in the home, on the train (ipods) etc so compression helps keep sounds above ambient noise.
Which came first, listening to single tracks or compressed music? I believe compression came first, this made concentrating on more than one track at a time difficult, indeed unenjoyable, so the need for switching artists became necessary.
This could turn in to a long topic.....
Agreed Marco, it certainly seems commercially led to me, but there is also the sad fact that 99.99% of folk don't give a toss about how something sounds. We can't expect the recording industry to cater for probably less than 0.1% of the population.
Yet it was the same people, i.e. the general public (albeit of a different generation), who, as you say, "couldn't give a toss about how something sounds", that they were catering to before when standards were higher.
That's my whole point! :)
So what's going on there, then? Do you think people of previous generations might just have been a little more discerning and appreciated things of quality more than today's lot? ;)
Marco.
Ali Tait
27-12-2010, 18:01
Yes, but the general public you're referring to used to listen to their records on old mono Dansette record players, and the like - hardly 'hi-fi sources', yet the quality of recordings on the records themselves was superb, so although I know where you're coming from, I'm afraid that argument far from tells the full story....
Heck, even old 78s sound fantastic (in terms of recording quality), if you've got the right equipment today to hear them properly - and look at the 'lo-fi' gear that would've been used in their day to play those back!
No, I'm afraid we've become victims of the 'quality over convenience' culture of today's 'throw-away' society. No-one values things anymore like they once did - end of - and that includes quality recordings of music, regardless of the shenanigans the music industry gets up to. Deep down, it's the people themselves that are the problem.
Marco.
I don't disagree Marco. As I said, I think standards were a lot higher in the past. Anyone who worked at the BBC will tell how standards have slipped in the last 30 years.
Reid Malenfant
27-12-2010, 18:05
I just had a thought guys (dangerous i know :eyebrows:)...
This just came to me seeing as you are talking about compression etc. I remember when i used to listen to radio 1 top 40 & other things to pick out some new music. One time i happened to catch a track by LFO which was coming out on their new album.
Having bought the CD i proceeded to play it back & when this track came on i just couldn't believe the difference between it & the radio 1 broadcast :doh: The broadcast was so compressed by that damn Optimod that the whole track sounded totally different.
Now to me it did sound vastly better on the CD, but i had a reasonable hifi at the time...
Now joe average would listen to the radio 1 broadcast & then the CD & assume something was wrong ;) Most peoples first exposure to a track is probably on the radio, is it possible that engineers are actually being kind of forced to compress stuff to all hell simply so people get the same sound as they heard as the broadcast?
Just a thought ;)
I don't disagree Marco. As I said, I think standards were a lot higher in the past. Anyone who worked at the BBC will tell how standards have slipped in the last 30 years.
Indeed. So what do you think is really driving the undoubted lowering of standards? Who or what is at the root cause of it? Let's try and get to the bottom of the problem....
Btw, this sorry state of affairs hasn't just infected the world of audio, but its effects are seen in all areas of life, including the food we eat, how our kids are growing up, and also much of the way we live today.
Marco.
I agree with a lot of the above and Clive’s point, roughly interpreted, as they mess about with recordings more now because they can, is also relevant.
Where I drastically diverge from the rest of you is at this “critical listening” point.
What is this about? Are you still listening to the music in “critical” mode or are you assessing the capability of your systems?
Imo this is where it all goes wrong with audiophiles.
Even at a live concert I try not to go into “critical” listening mode as I understand it.
I either feel involved in the performance or I don’t. If the acoustics in that venue aren’t that great my ears make allowances for it but the performance and musical experience can still be great.
What I mean by critical listening is listening solely to the music, not reading a book or playing a video game whilst the music is on. Also listening in an environment conducive to enjoying and appreciating music.
Hi Mark,
I just had a thought guys (dangerous i know :eyebrows:)...
This just came to me seeing as you are talking about compression etc. I remember when i used to listen to radio 1 top 40 & other things to pick out some new music. One time i happened to catch a track by LFO which was coming out on their new album.
Having bought the CD i proceeded to play it back & when this track came on i just couldn't believe the difference between it & the radio 1 broadcast :doh: The broadcast was so compressed by that damn Optimod that the whole track sounded totally different.
You raise a very interesting point, and one I have much sympathy with, but for entirely different reasons! :)
When I was a teenager in the 70s and 80s I used to always record the Top 40 chart show on a Sunday night on Radio 1. In those days I had a fairly unremarkable JVC separates system consisting of a record deck, tuner, tape deck, amp and speakers.
However, the recordings I used to make sounded FANTASTIC, simply because back then the BBC cared much more about standards of sound quality than they do now (I'd say the 'golden era' from my memory was around 1979-82), and so used top-notch analogue equipment, such as EMT T/Ts and Studer tape decks to broadcast music to their listeners. I'm sure that FM radio was less compressed then, too.
I also lived high up on a hill, and used a good outside aerial, so the quality of sound I used to get listening to the chart show then was sublime, even on a modest system. I always strived to get similar quality when making tapes on my own system of the 45 RPM singles I used to buy then, but to no avail - simply because my equipment wasn't good enough....
Then when CD came out quite soon later, the BBC slowly got rid of all their superb sounding (expensive) analogue gear, moved to minidisc and CD, and things went downhill from there... I could clearly hear the poorer sound quality of their broadcasts of the Top 40 during the same chart shows on a Sunday night - and that was when I was about 17! These days in radio stations, music being broadcast is all computer driven, and the results are even worse! :rolleyes:
So I've had a somewhat different experience to you in that respect.
Marco.
I am not sure why sound quality for most studios became less important my guess would be many
I do think people who really care about music quality have always been in the minority.
Music for me has always been about that emotional connection, its a kind of friend that I can always come back home too. I like to immerse myself in music.
If you care about music sign up to http://productionadvice.co.uk/dynamic-range-day/
I think this is where tuning your system to your hearing and listening habits becomes relevant. I’m much like Colin in this respect. My system is definitely not every audiophiles dream by any means but I can listen to the music I use it for without discomfort, 24/96, redbook, mp3 (at a sensible bit rate) all sound acceptable to my ears. Yep, it would be nice if all my music met the quality standard of the best in my collection but it doesn’t and never will.
I think this is a problem with Hi Fi as Colin points out. At a certain point the suitability of the system for particular genres of music starts to matter.
You can chuck as much money as you like at exotic bits of kit but eventually, I anyway, realized that a compromise had to be reached and the changes I made more often than not meant different and not necessarily better.
If “you” find recording quality or the way your system reproduce the music you like listening to unbearable then I’m sorely tempted to say there is something wrong with your system; not in absolute terms, but in accordance with your listening habits, enviroment and musical tastes perhaps. Maybe you don’t like the music.
I know my system can’t do some types of music to my satisfaction so I don’t play them.
It’s not that I don’t notice recording quality or my systems shortfalls but I know what they are and I have worked towards tailoring/ameliorating the worst of them so I enjoy the music and don’t get irritated by the systems imperfections.
That’s good Hi Fi imo.
Hi Andre,
Something i'd like to demonstrate is CD-r made from a well cleaned vinyl record, Vs the same album shop bought on CD (digitally farted about with). It will become apparent that the CD-r will sound every bit the same quality as the original vinyl source it came from . which proves the CD is a brilliant format, because it is you know.where as the shop bought album of the same will sound dreadfull in comparison imho.
That's a great point, and I completely agree - as indeed I'm sure would anyone else who's tried it :)
It's not necessarily the media used that's the problem, but the way the recording itself has been treated...
*But*, what I can also hear when doing the above, is how much better the results are when I make a CD-R of music from my T/T, using mint condition well-recorded music on vinyl, than when I make a CD-R of the same music, but use a CD, rather than vinyl, as the source.....
So what does that tell you? ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
27-12-2010, 19:26
Hi Andre,
That's a great point, and I completely agree - as indeed I'm sure would anyone else who's tried it :)
It's not necessarily the media used that's the problem, but the way the recording itself has been treated...
*But*, what I can also hear when doing the above, is how much better the results are when I make a CD-R of music from my T/T, using mint condition well-recorded music on vinyl, than when I make a CD-R of the same music, but use a CD, rather than vinyl, as the source.....
So what does that tell you? ;)
Marco.
Thats my point, people slag of CD saying it's bright & brash & all those fancy terms.It's ot the CD's faut it's how the music is processed & put forth onto the general public..A CD can sound as good or bad as you make it.i was finding it pretty hard telling between the record playing on the turntable Vs the CD-R made from the same
I do agree, but in my experience, CDs sound best when they've been produced using a quality analogue source (not a digital one), which is what I was alluding to in my previous post.
That's why old 'AAD' produced CDs can often sonically outperform today's all-digital offerings!
But yes, it does prove your point that the problem isn't with the CD medium itself :)
Marco.
What is particularly annoying about the current volume (compression) wars is that it's totally unnecessary. Good recordings still sound good on iPods and radio and TV stations add their own compression where they see fit.
It might be worth pointing out that the engineers responsible for this may not necessarily be the kind that you or I would call 'music lovers'. Sound engineers can be a funny lot and focus on entirely different things than you or I might. Technical aspects of the recording can matter more than musical ones.
Another problem I see with digital is that it's too easy. You can add effects, compression, chuck tracks around and chop bits out and in far more easily than you could with analogue. And if you make something easy people are far more likely to do it, even if it's not necessarily a good idea. Some of the early analogue recordings are bind blowing, almost certainly because they are simple.
Another problem I see with digital is that it's too easy. You can add effects, compression, chuck tracks around and chop bits out and in far more easily than you could with analogue. And if you make something easy people are far more likely to do it, even if it's not necessarily a good idea. Some of the early analogue recordings are bind blowing, almost certainly because they are simple.
Indeed. What rips my knitting though (there's an old fav phrase of yours!) is how easily 'easy' always wins over 'better', as far as the brain-dead general public are concerned. You could say the same of microwave meals - they're 'easier', too! :rolleyes:
What happened to striving for the best?
Marco.
Beechwoods
27-12-2010, 20:06
When The Byrds were recording 'Mr Tambourine Man' it's said that the producer would send work in progress mixes on acetate to a local radio station, and drive around in his car listening to the mix over his car stereo. His view was that he was mixing the track to sound good in that environment. It's how we ended up with that jangly, strong-midrange sound that was so characteristic of their early sound.
Prog was associated with technical proficiency, and prog audiences expected fidelity as part of the package - the would invest in their equipment to enjoy the music, that was part of the scene. I think this might explain why Prog generally sounds pretty well recorded.
I think that the problem these days is simply that the music is designed to be played on little machines, as everyone has said. For a lot of people, having some portable gizmo that they can move from room to room, or piped into a number of machines in different rooms is the be-all and end all. Listened to over small multi-purpose satellite speakers and a 'discrete' sub-woofer it all sounds pretty much of a muchness.
When the BBC can call a 320kbps MP3 stream 'High Definition' you can tell we're in a parlous state. It's sad that they think such a thing is worthy of fanfare. On that specific point, they're running scared of ISPs passing infrastructure costs on to them for carrying their data... so you can kiss goodbye to lossless streams from the Beeb any time soon.
“I do agree, but in my experience, CDs sound best when they've been produced using a quality analogue source (not a digital one), which is what I was alluding to in my previous post.
That's why old 'AAD' produced CDs can often sonically outperform today's all-digital offerings!”
I can’t help but wonder how many of us could pick out a decent AAD from a decent DDD recording :scratch:
Indeed - which is probably why this thread died a death:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8575
:lol:
Marco.
IMO Ali hit the nail on the head in that most music is consumed "on the go" these days, and people who sit down and listen to a "Stereo" are few and far between in the 21st century. One of the big problems is that music has to compete with everything else that is now commonplace in the world, and wasn't an issue in the 50s/60s - video games, internet, mobile phones and TV/DVD/Blu-Ray - basically, it is supply and demand - very few people demand high-quality music recordings, so business kicks in, and commercialism takes over - make the track sound superficially good to the majority of the people that will hear it - so for pop music, I suspect that means optimised for crappy TV speakers, standard ipod headphones (note - the headphones are by far the weakest link with an ipod IMHO - designed (again, for the convenience generation) who will only ever bother with 128mbps MP3, where the headphones will make no real difference) and car stereos.
So who is to blame for reduction in recording quality? IMO no one - it is just a sad reflection on our society - if you have heard of DAD - Divided Attention Disorder - then this could be one of the symptoms. However, I do think the tide will turn. Those of us who grew up before technology came along have kind of gone "wow" and been dragged along with it, buying into the idea that all of this advancement is enriching our lives. But the next generation are born into a world where none of this tech is anything other than normal - (my 2 year old daughter can already launch and play games on her mum's iphone, FFS!) - maybe (just maybe) kids will rebel against the world around them and eschew modern mediocrity - in the same way that teenagers in the 50s and 60s began to shake off the austerity and formalities of the world into which they had been born and seek new directions. Maybe the next generation will turn their back to the "always on" world, and look to more simple pleasures and media consumption? Nah, probably not. We're all doomed, doomed I tell ye! ;)
I do think people who really care about music quality have always been in the minority.
I'm sure that's right, but I suspect that this minority is *much* smaller than it was generation or two ago.
When I was at secondary school (mid '70s), the vast majority of my friends were 'into' music. And it was more often than not the same music - pick from Floyd/Zep/Genesis/Yes/Deep Purple/Tangerine Dream/Kraftwerk etc. Stuff that, in the main, was well recorded. I suspect that these bands demanded good fidelity and their producers/engineers had to comply.
Almost all of us had OK or better systems to listen to. Several of my friends parents had great systems that we would all want to hear when we visited their houses (One of my mates' girlfriends dad had an LP12 with Quad amps and Quad ESLs). Even the old 'radiograms' that some of our parents still owned had Garrard or Lenco decks, valve amps and 8" or 10" speakers - better than that £15 pile of poo from Tescos that was declared Britain's most popular 'Hi-Fi' a while back!
And we all listened a lot. If you were indoors at home there wasn't a lot else to do really - the choice was listen to music, watch TV (3 channels to choose from - not that it was your choice anyway as there was only the one telly and your parents paid for it so they got to choose), reading, hobbies such as model making, electronics etc and that was it. No videos/DVDs, computers, computer games, mobile phones, Internet/Facebook etc. etc.
If you looked in any newsagents no matter how small there would be always several hi-fi magazines (Hi-Fi News, Practical Hi-Fi, Popular Hi-Fi, Hi-Fi Answers etc). These represented a fair proportion of the 'Men's interest' section - which nowadays is dominated by 'lifestyle' mags, computer/gaming mags etc. none of which existed then. One of my friends' dads used to pass his hi-fi mags on to his son and they got passed around a dozen or so of us. These would be drooled over almost as keenly as some of the other magazines that got passed around amongst teenage boys ;) None of the newsagents in my town stocks any hi-fi magazine now (except for special orders).
Today's youngsters have so many other things to occupy their free time with that music hardly gets a look in with many - and often if it does it's only because it's associated with something else - X-Factor, hip-hop fashion/culture etc. If music is listened to at all it's usually whilst 'on the go' either on the iPod (left earpiece in their ear, the right in a mate's) or in a car with the volume and bass whacked-up to eleven.
Not that I think any of this is why many modern pop recordings sound crap :doh: I think it's purely the record company execs demanding that their engineers make their recordings as loud and attention-grabbing as possible when heard on bad systems to encourage sales.
Old-fart rant over.
Interesting discussion so far - Marco, maybe it would be better to split the thread as it's drifted away from the subject originally posted?
Reid Malenfant
27-12-2010, 21:52
I'm sure that's right, but I suspect that this minority is *much* smaller than it was generation or two ago.
When I was at secondary school (mid '70s), the vast majority of my friends were 'into' music. And it was more often than not the same music - pick from Floyd/Zep/Genesis/Yes/Deep Purple/Tangerine Dream/Kraftwerk etc. Stuff that, in the main, was well recorded. I suspect that these bands demanded good fidelity and their producers/engineers had to comply.
Almost all of us had OK or better systems to listen to. Several of my friends parents had great systems that we would all want to hear when we visited their houses (One of my mates' girlfriends dad had an LP12 with Quad amps and Quad ESLs). Even the old 'radiograms' that some of our parents still owned had Garrard or Lenco decks, valve amps and 8" or 10" speakers - better than that £15 pile of poo from Tescos that was declared Britain's most popular 'Hi-Fi' a while back!
And we all listened a lot. If you were indoors at home there wasn't a lot else to do really - the choice was listen to music, watch TV (3 channels to choose from - not that it was your choice anyway as there was only the one telly and your parents paid for it so they got to choose), reading, hobbies such as model making, electronics etc and that was it. No videos/DVDs, computers, computer games, mobile phones, Internet/Facebook etc. etc.
If you looked in any newsagents no matter how small there would be always several hi-fi magazines (Hi-Fi News, Practical Hi-Fi, Popular Hi-Fi, Hi-Fi Answers etc). These represented a fair proportion of the 'Men's interest' section - which nowadays is dominated by 'lifestyle' mags, computer/gaming mags etc. none of which existed then. One of my friends' dads used to pass his hi-fi mags on to his son and they got passed around a dozen or so of us. These would be drooled over almost as keenly as some of the other magazines that got passed around amongst teenage boys ;) None of the newsagents in my town stocks any hi-fi magazine now (except for special orders).
Today's youngsters have so many other things to occupy their free time with that music hardly gets a look in with many - and often if it does it's only because it's associated with something else - X-Factor, hip-hop fashion/culture etc. If music is listened to at all it's usually whilst 'on the go' either on the iPod (left earpiece in their ear, the right in a mate's) or in a car with the volume and bass whacked-up to eleven.
Not that I think any of this is why many modern pop recordings sound crap :doh: I think it's purely the record company execs demanding that their engineers make their recordings as loud and attention-grabbing as possible when heard on bad systems to encourage sales.
Old-fart rant over.
Cheers for taking me back to old times :eyebrows: I was late 70s at secondary school but i get where you are coming from :)
I agree with the above in it's entirety.
Cor, here we go again, blame the younguns!
We are to blame. Yes us, the audiophiles. If youngsters aren’t interested in quality its because our generation has either bored them to death driveling on about some multi grand system or other, or bored them to death with tales of when I was a lad.
At 17 I was much the same as today’s youth I imagine; getting out of my brains, shagging, wheels and listening to whatever music I could get my ears around was what was important……………prolly still is.
I got my first Hi Fi in my twenties, not so much because I was dying to hear quality music replay but because I could afford it.
Come on, if you were 17 what would you want, a smart set of wheels and an ipod or some bloody inconvenient expensive system you and your analy retentive mates could critically listen to in the evenings over a glass of wine or five.
At least the kids are still listening to music and if mp3 is what does it for them I’m good with that especially seeing as a lot of us golden eared mob couldn’t tell the difference between a decent 320 mp3 and our much lauded better resolution stuff.
Bbbbback off the kids ffs and start slapping a few audiophiles about.
Times change people.
(Sry, gear grinding again ;) )
Reid Malenfant
27-12-2010, 22:16
Not the young ones :)
It's the oldies that bought all these games machines & computers, I pods & i don't know what else for their kids... There are so many more things to do these days (that goes for adults to!) that only a certain amount of attention can be brought to anything.
Less is more ;)
We are set in our ways & enjoy our music. Beating the Jones's is now the name of the game & it's encouraged by advertising so we buy stuff :doh: If you don't get your kids good stuff they'll get picked on at school :mental:
Perhaps i'm wrong, sorry for the thread drift :doh:
Some good recent contributions here, chaps, which I'll get to in more detail later...
Just one small point, John, I wasn't blaming youngsters (many of the ones I know are pretty discerning actually in terms of their choice of music and what it's played on), but rather the brain-dead general public (of all ages, but mainly sad middle-aged men, and older, trying to hold back the sands of time by attempting to be 'cool' and trendy), amongst whom quality is seemingly always a very poor second best to convenience with almost anything you can think of.
Their obsession with gadgetry (of dubious usefulness) seemingly knows no bounds....!! :rolleyes:
Oh, and owning a quality hi-fi system when I was younger didn't in any way impinge on my 'horizontal jogging' activities - quite the opposite in fact - the girlies loved it! :eyebrows: ;)
As for music 'on the go', Alex makes a very good point. However, I think that this is sadly indicative of the lifestyle many people live nowadays, where folk are running around like headless chickens, without a minute to themselves, trying to do far too many things at once; in many cases, attempting to fund a lifestyle they can ill afford, without having hardly any quality time to themselves or with their loved ones.....
Thank God I don't inhabit that world!
Keith, yup, will split the thread later as you suggest :)
Marco.
”Thank God I don't inhabit that world!”
Oh you do Marco; it’s just you seem to have enough disposable income to shelter you from some of the worst of the unpleasantness ;)
(Not meant to be offensive mate, just an observation on life. We all live here :) )
Lol - perhaps, but only because I worked like a dog when I was younger, building up my business, and (luckily) it was successful. I realised early on in my career that no-one (employers or pension plans) were going to look after me in my old age. I had to secure my own future!
The point I was making, though, was that so many people nowadays think that they're 'entitled' to a lifestyle they can't really afford (a big house, two cars or more, three holidays a year, all the latest gadgets, kids in private school, etc), and miss out on many of life's more simple, but ultimately more valuable, pleasures. I know people like that, and they're living in cloud cuckoo-land, as everything is paid for on loans and maxed-out credit cards. Utter lunacy!! :mental:
And one of the most simple and precious things of all in life is TIME.
There's nothing I enjoy more than relaxing with my wife, listening to music on a very good hi-fi system, whilst enjoying a glass or three of wine... I'm semi-retired at 45 (and debt-free), but could've had more disposable income to play with by working on full-time until I was 65....
I chose not to, as quite simply, I value precious TIME with my loved ones much more than I do money, superficial material possessions, or frivolous gadgetry, and my wife feels the same :)
If only more people were happier with a simpler life, the world would be a better place. Also, none of us know how much TIME we have on this earth.
That fact was brought home to me with a bang when a few years ago I was diagnosed with a spinal tumour, and was told that if I didn't have it removed I'd have 6 months to live, and if I did, there was a 90% chance that I would be left paralysed from the waist down...
Fortunately, the tumour was non-malignant, and I made a (near) full recovery from the operation. Experiences like that put things into perspective.
One day when the 'headless chickens' of today, living beyond their means, have died from a heart attack, they'll look down from above (or up from below if they were bad boys :eyebrows:) and wonder if it was all worth it....................
Sad but true.
Marco.
a little revalation today , my oldest daughter Aime'e who is 19 whilst i was comparing music sources told me that she prefered the sound from my caimen/squeezebox over a cd transport playing the same track, first off she new what a dac was and secondly she made a constructive critisism based on sound quility alone, whooopee i'm a happy bunny, she is getting the hang of this hifi lark, proud as fuck i am
Rare Bird
28-12-2010, 00:10
I do agree, but in my experience, CDs sound best when they've been produced using a quality analogue source (not a digital one), which is what I was alluding to in my previous post.
That's why old 'AAD' produced CDs can often sonically outperform today's all-digital offerings!
But yes, it does prove your point that the problem isn't with the CD medium itself :)
Marco.
Yes i was refering to straight off the turntable into CD recorder..
You’ve done well then Marco.
Yep, I do agree with you about how badly we judge what is and what isn’t of value in this life.
I f****d up more times than I care to think about and had the lot taken away more than once. Guess I needed to learn something perhaps :scratch:
Rare Bird
28-12-2010, 00:23
You’ve done well then Marco.
Yep, I do agree with you about how badly we judge what is and what isn’t of value in this life.
I f****d up more times than I care to think about and had the lot taken away more than once. Guess I needed to learn something perhaps :scratch:
O i was cut short early in life, never totally trust the one you hold dearest unless you have a back up plan i say, there'sfine line between love & hate. Pensions are dead money imho these days, i work every hour god sends & don't get very far. besides money is a game right, you can have it but you only give it back, there's only one financial winner & it aint us.These days i spend very little if i can help it & buy just what i need, i don't use something after awhile i sell it, i got shut of nearly all my vintage gear a bit back...was loverly to own but technically dead money to me i could use on other things..
I learned a long time ago that you never see "I Wish I had Gone to Work More" on any headstones, and the cemeteries are full of irreplaceable people...
Oh arr, while we are comfy and given what a noisy bastard I am, I’ll say now, I’ll be very very quiet over the New Year because I’m off to Spain and Italy to see some of my loved ones.
Don’t want anyone wondering if I’ve dropped dead or anything.
OMG, proper Italian cooking! :lol:
Dontcha just love cheap flights.
The people that have never worked for them selves will never appreciate what happens in the real world of being self employed, if your sick tough luck , you learn not to be or you will get nothing, you won't get payed for feeling a bit under the weather, perhaps i might be a bit stressed and want to take 6 months off, i still get nothing, get yourself a back bone and get on with it, i have for over 23 years and have brought up a family on it, welcome to the real world it sucks at times,
There are people that will always be employed and those that won't, try stepping into the other ones shoes and see if you can hack it.
End of rant
Rare Bird
28-12-2010, 00:34
I learned a long time ago that you never see "I Wish I had Gone to Work More" on any headstones, and the cemeteries are full of irreplaceable people...
Daft innit really, i knew i lot oldish people who worked all their lives in steelworks or down on the coal face, soon as they retired that seem to be the end of em, gone within a few years! :scratch:
End of the day we aint put on earth to work our bollox off to buy fancy houses, cars & Hi-Hi's..You gotta ease off sometime & rationalise yourselves spending wise
Yep, agree with that Jonboy. After I got fired from my last engineering job I went self employed for about 12 years as a fencing sub contractor. Outside in all weathers, all work on price, bloody hard going.
Rare Bird
28-12-2010, 00:39
The people that have never worked for them selves will never appreciate what happens in the real world of being self employed, if your sick tough luck , you learn not to be or you will get nothing, you won't get payed for feeling a bit under the weather, perhaps i might be a bit stressed and want to take 6 months off, i still get nothing, get yourself a back bone and get on with it, i have for over 23 years and have brought up a family on it, welcome to the real world it sucks at times,
There are people that will always be employed and those that won't, try stepping into the other ones shoes and see if you can hack it.
End of rant
Tell you what i get sick of seeing & it's everywhere i look, idle b*sturds that wont work ''I'm better off on the dole'' shite..Makes my blood boil..I had three little jobs two years before leaving school & always have worked ever since, all i know.I would love to be self employed again, i was close to it a while back but couldnt afford the rates on the work unit..
Oh arr, while we are comfy and given what a noisy bastard I am, I’ll say now, I’ll be very very quiet over the New Year because I’m off to Spain and Italy to see some of my loved ones.Don’t want anyone wondering if I’ve dropped dead or anything.
OMG, proper Italian cooking!
Nice one, John - enjoy! Proper Italian cooking? Oh, I know a wee bit about that :eyebrows:
Marco.
Yep, agree with that Jonboy. After I got fired from my last engineering job I went self employed for about 12 years as a fencing sub contractor. Outside in all weathers, all work on price, bloody hard going.
Thanks John, fencing is also part of our everyday job, all on price come rain or shine
It still pisses me off. I was a damn good engineer albeit with a bad management attitude.
I had a good degree, worked hard, but just couldn’t handle senior management. No doubt some of you can see why.
At that time engineering was being killed off by Thatcher and I could earn more money digging holes than I could as an engineer :mental:
Tell you what i get sick of seeing & it's everywhere i look, idle b*sturds that wont work ''I'm better off on the dole'' shite..Makes my blood boil,
me to, i will give anyone the time of day that are willing and do go to work, but have little time for those that don't and can't be arsed because the state will pay more, fucking makes my blood boil TBH
It still pisses me off. I was a damn good engineer albeit with a bad management attitude.
I had a good degree, worked hard, but just couldn’t handle senior management. No doubt some of you can see why.
At that time engineering was being killed off by Thatcher and I could earn more money digging holes than I could as an engineer :mental:
I did a five year apprenticeship in engineering and ended up being paid £100 a week, my father started the company (i now own) and offered me £170 a week for digging holes, so you can guess which way i went, the engineering comes in handy as we are a maintenance company as well,
i still want all of my kids to get themselves a trade or some sort of training as it will serve them well in the future, i don't want them to rely on me for thier future, i try not to be the soft touch, they need to stand on thier own two feet,( i'm a bit of softy at heart and will always help them if i can and see fit)
There are people that will always be employed and those that won't, try stepping into the other ones shoes and see if you can hack it.
Good advice. You should always walk a mile in someone's shoes before you criticise them. That way, when you do criticise them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes!
Does FLAC come in a Windows and apple variety as well? I never knew that.
I look forward to the lawsuit :).
Easy on the sarcasm Stanley...;)
magiccarpetride
29-12-2010, 02:09
So why then have we allowed ('allow' is the key word here) standards of recording quality to fall so badly compared to those of the 50s and 60s?
I manage software development for a fairly large corporation (bear with me, this is somewhat related to the topic). In a way, I act as a producer of software, in that I need to coordinate various software development related disciplines. I've noticed that a lot of subcontractors in the software world tend to over-build. This is not surprising, because that's how they make their living.
But I'm learning how not to allow ('allow' being the key word here) them to build bloat. I've learned that simpler is better, and that bloat is only good for the contractors' wallets.
I suspect the same thing happened to the music recording industry -- a lot of contractors and subcontractors started drumming up their business. Before we knew it, we ended up with over-produced bloat, where the engineers were throwing in every trick in the book, compressing, limiting, gating, you name it.
This is no doubt great for them and for their bank accounts, but lousy for us, the paying customers. We ought to demand that these 'experts' cease and desist messing with the music they produce. Most of the time, the raw track captured on tape is the best sound, so just leave it alone.
Beechwoods
29-12-2010, 07:16
Most of the time, the raw track captured on tape is the best sound, so just leave it alone.
Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. Studio and performer time is expensive. There's an increasing tendency (perhaps - this is a supposition on my part, but let's see how it floats) to 'fix it in the mix'. Maybe the rot set in with Disco. When they realised they could remix, repackage and resell reworkings of tracks that didn't sound at all like the original performed in the studio. Then later, they could change the key of vocals, autotune errors etc. That must have been quite attractive to the bean counters. I would imagine that the cost of a post-production suite, a producer and an assistant, is a lot cheaper than the cost of a studio with band, session musicians, catering, games room and rider... :rolleyes:
magiccarpetride
29-12-2010, 17:32
Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. Studio and performer time is expensive. There's an increasing tendency (perhaps - this is a supposition on my part, but let's see how it floats) to 'fix it in the mix'. Maybe the rot set in with Disco. When they realised they could remix, repackage and resell reworkings of tracks that didn't sound at all like the original performed in the studio. Then later, they could change the key of vocals, autotune errors etc. That must have been quite attractive to the bean counters. I would imagine that the cost of a post-production suite, a producer and an assistant, is a lot cheaper than the cost of a studio with band, session musicians, catering, games room and rider... :rolleyes:
My contention is if the artist/band cannot deliver acceptable performance during the allotted studio time, maybe they should start looking for a day job. This is what separates boys from men. If a performer needs autotune correcting, tempo and pace correcting, or any other doctoring during the post production phase that would cover performer's incompetencies, that artist is not worth his salt, and should go back to flipping burgers.
The generally poor sound quality of many modern releases can have a slightly unexpected plus side.
A week or so before Christmas Marco dropped off those Mana Stages I bought off him, thanks again for that by the way. I played him few things I knew sounded good but very soon I wanted to play music I like that I've picked up relativity recently. All of it is very compressed and not very great sounding but this has the effect of making you give up on thinking about the sound quality and just listen to the music. Once you accept that it sounds crap you think 'oh well', crank it up and just enjoy it.
Kinda takes you back to listening to music in your teens, where the music was what mattered. Bopping around your mate's bedrooms to his Fidelity record player or her radio cassette without giving a thought to the sound quality.
I don't give any thought to sound quality when I buy music these days. I assume it'll be bad and I don't care. I just play the music. Isn't that what it should be about?
If you listen to something like Santana / Supernatural there are no crescendos. I've just played a 10" inch 45, Dire Straits - Private Investigations, the dynamics are breathtaking. Without dynamics music is DEAD.
Without dynamics music is DEAD.
Not many things cut like Private Investigations though eh?
And how come I still fell in love with Love Over Gold even on a crappy music centre? Hi fidelity has a down side. You start caring about the sound quality too much. There was a time when I played the music that sounded good on my system. Lots of music I loved as a kid got ignored.
So I started changing my system. Out went stuff that sounded spectacular on ten-percent of my records and in came stuff that sounded good enough on ninety. What's the point of building a system that only works on great disks? I want one that plays the disks they make, not the ones I'd like them to make.
magiccarpetride
29-12-2010, 20:30
Kinda takes you back to listening to music in your teens, where the music was what mattered. Bopping around your mate's bedrooms to his Fidelity record player or her radio cassette without giving a thought to the sound quality.
I don't give any thought to sound quality when I buy music these days. I assume it'll be bad and I don't care. I just play the music. Isn't that what it should be about?
That would depend on the context. It's like a kitchen and food. Some people simply enjoy the food, some others may also have a keen sense for enjoying the kitchen. You know, building a nice kitchen, stacking it with high quality utensils, high grade knifes, that kind of stuff. Then, they talk 'shop' with their kitchen-aficionado buddies.
That doesn't necessarily mean that these aficionados do not enjoy food, it just means that they also enjoy the place where the meal comes from.
Yes, there will always be some smug food snobs who will accuse the kitchen aficionados of having no soul, blah blah blah. But there is a lot of pleasure to be had from building a perfect kitchen, acquiring the highest possible equipment for the kitchen. In the process, that may mean being in a position to also whip up a better than average meal.
What's wrong with that? Similarly, attempting to listen to music on the highest possible quality audio system does not mean that one does not focus on music. It's means toward achieving an end. Remember, the end justifies the means.
Some people simply enjoy the food, some others may also have a keen sense for enjoying the kitchen. You know, building a nice kitchen, stacking it with high quality utensils, high grade knifes, that kind of stuff. Then, they talk 'shop' with their kitchen-aficionado buddies.
That doesn't necessarily mean that these aficionados do not enjoy food, it just means that they...
Are wankers? ;0)
Not many things cut like Private Investigations though eh?
And how come I still fell in love with Love Over Gold even on a crappy music centre? Hi fidelity has a down side. You start caring about the sound quality too much. There was a time when I played the music that sounded good on my system. Lots of music I loved as a kid got ignored.
So I started changing my system. Out went stuff that sounded spectacular on ten-percent of my records and in came stuff that sounded good enough on ninety. What's the point of building a system that only works on great disks? I want one that plays the disks they make, not the ones I'd like them to make.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.....dynamic music will sound good on an average system. Sure a "good" system will make you more aware of crap recordings but they should still be listenable if you really like the music. This is about music, not hi-fi.
Telegraph Road is an amazing track but if it's compressed to hell it'll be useless.
magiccarpetride
29-12-2010, 20:53
If you listen to something like Santana / Supernatural there are no crescendos. I've just played a 10" inch 45, Dire Straits - Private Investigations, the dynamics are breathtaking. Without dynamics music is DEAD.
Even if there were crescendos on Supernatural, that music would still sound dead. Why? Because it's stillborn. You see, Carlos sold his soul to the devil (read: Clive), in order to be able to launch his line of female accessories. Where's the music in that?
I adore Santana (especially "Abraxas"), but I seriously think that ageing Carlos totally forgot how to play music.
A"good" system will make you more aware of crap recordings but they should still be listenable if you really like the music
True, but many 'Hi-End' systems don't do this.
But that's not the point. My system sounds better with good recordings but when most of he music you buy isn't well recorded you tend to think about the system less and just play music.
True, but many 'Hi-End' systems don't do this.
But that's not the point. My system sounds better with good recordings but when most of he music you buy isn't well recorded you tend to think about the system less and just play music.
I suppose it depends what annoys you most. I can live with bright hyped up recordings but compression to the point where all sounds are the same level annoy the hell out of me. Maybe it's just me.
gramofone
01-01-2011, 08:41
I suppose it depends what annoys you most. I can live with bright hyped up recordings but compression to the point where all sounds are the same level annoy the hell out of me. Maybe it's just me.
You are not alone, Clive.
Of the different types of compression, file size compression is relatively benign - it just makes the music sound thinner, but can it can still be enjoyable, nevertheless.
The other form, dynamic compression (see 'Wiki Loudness Wars' for a complete description of this insidious practice), is totally unacceptable in my view. As Clive says, this completely kills the music itself and the enjoyment of it.:steam:
The reason MP3 files sound bad is because the music is BOTH dynamically compressed to begin with and is then file size compressed.:doh:
This is another reason to listen to Hi-Res music: Because these recordings are not only not file size compressed (at least not to the same level as CD, MP3 etc), but more importantly they are generally not dynamically compressed either.
The recent Band on the Run release is a case in point, which offered dynamically uncompressed cut from the master tape. ( Which, of course, is the only version you should download).
I became interested in this subject when I couldn't explain to myself why I enjoyed watching live recordings on YouTube. (YouTube I think has a sample rate of about 90 or 120 KBps and may even be mono). Yet some of these recordings can really move me - Ok, the video helps, but equally it is the fact that these recordings have not been through the Digital Mastering/ Re-Mastering process.
The exception is the "Official" Music Video releases which I never listen to for the above reasons.
i'm i the only one, or is there anyone else out there that really hates apple, i got an ipod a while back and although i like it, i don't like the way apple seem to force you to use there software, i eventually managed to do away with iTunes and now have my ipod talking to Windows Media Player.
Give me flac and a pc anyday :cool:
Nope, you aren't the only one... :trust:
I've owned several iPods ranging from the original Nano to a 32gb Classic Video and they have all been shit. First off, they are not durable, all three are broken. Secondly, a few years back and to save money, Apple downgraded the internal components in its MP3/4 players to cheaper alternatives, specifically the D/A section. This had a huge impact on sound quality. Don't believe me? Try listening to an original 20gb, blue screen iPod along side an iPod Touch. To recycle the mis-used term posted earlier in this thread, the difference really is 'night & day'.
I find Apple's attitude towards its customers to be extremely arrogant. Take the current fiasco rumbling around the net concerning Steve Jobs attitude towards 'Flash' support. In some respects Jobs has a point, it isn't a perfect format and it's a given that 'html5' will be a godsend when it finally arrives, but just now, the vast majority of users expect to be able to own a device that supports 'Flash' video, so to uni-laterally remove that support from his products, and then go further by trying to forbid customers from adapting his products to support the format smacks of egotistical meddling in my book.
For that reason I won't allow another Apple product to cross the threshold of my home, at least for the foreseeable future. When Jobs stops dicking about and finally removes his 'tin-pot' dictator helmet I may reconsider my decision. IMO Apple are worse than Microsoft in their darkest days... :steam:
Apple are a gadget company ;)
Pretty but useless IMHO
Android will be the death of them in the phone, and mobile device market :)
Apple are a gadget company ;)
Pretty but useless IMHO
Android will be the death of them in the phone, and mobile device market :)
I couldn't agree more... :clap: :clap: :clap: :respect:
Jac Hawk
02-01-2011, 14:39
I couldn't agree more... :clap: :clap: :clap: :respect:
Yup they're a bit like bose in that respect, i was talking to a guy who worked for apple, and i asked him what he thought of the new ipad. give me a laptop anyday was his reply. :lol:
Yup they're a bit like bose in that respect, i was talking to a guy who worked for apple, and i asked him what he thought of the new ipad. give me a laptop anyday was his reply. :lol:
Hahaha :lol:
I bought an Android phone (Orange San Francisco) just before xmas and I've been pretty impressed with it up to now. Plays music extraordinarily well through my system and when using my 'phones (Superlux 668B's). It certainly knocks spots off my mates iPhone 4 and he feels a bit sick that it has a better screen and functionality than his iPoo 4. When I told him how much I paid for it he almost had an apoplectic fit (£99)... :lol:
Ali Tait
02-01-2011, 15:03
Apple are a gadget company ;)
Pretty but useless IMHO
Android will be the death of them in the phone, and mobile device market :)
Yep agreed. I much prefer my HTC.
Yep agreed. I much prefer my HTC.
And now you can run winamp on andriod...it's beta at the moment but it's been rock solid on my HTC Desire...FLAC support, gapless playback, and replaygain are all in the pipeline :)
Oh and SqueezeCommander for squeezebox control
Oh and flash support
Oh and the interchangeable SDHC card
Oh and drag and drop file copying
Oh and google apps integration
...I could go on ;)
Be my guest.... :popcorn: ;)
I find Apple's attitude towards its customers to be extremely arrogant.
I must admit I can't stand Apple either. My son had an Intel iMac. First the DVD drive packed in and then vertical lines appeared on the screen. It was out of warranty by this point but this thing cost a grand!
Being Apple, the only place you could get it fixed was at an Apple approved repair centre and they wanted about £90 just to look at it! The faulty display was an known issue with a particular factory in China but they still tried to avoid taking the blame. They lied about it being a known fault until I proved that I knew it was. They eventually fixed it but that would've been a £400+ repair if I'd had to pay for it. As soon as it was fixed the iMac was sold and there's no way I'd get another one. Apple is cheapo rubbish dressed in a party frock. OK, lots of people get stuff made in China but few have the neck to charge premium prices for it. And get away with it!
Ali Tait
02-01-2011, 17:21
And now you can run winamp on andriod...it's beta at the moment but it's been rock solid on my HTC Desire...FLAC support, gapless playback, and replaygain are all in the pipeline :)
Oh and SqueezeCommander for squeezebox control
Oh and flash support
Oh and the interchangeable SDHC card
Oh and drag and drop file copying
Oh and google apps integration
...I could go on ;)
Yep agreed, I have the Desire too. What a great piece of kit.
bigmarty
02-01-2011, 18:01
How very dare you.............
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb9/martinattullymet/f4da438c.jpg
Big Marty.....Apple fan! :lol::lol::lol:
I must admit I can't stand Apple either. My son had an Intel iMac. First the DVD drive packed in and then vertical lines appeared on the screen. It was out of warranty by this point but this thing cost a grand!
Being Apple, the only place you could get it fixed was at an Apple approved repair centre and they wanted about £90 just to look at it! The faulty display was an known issue with a particular factory in China but they still tried to avoid taking the blame. They lied about it being a known fault until I proved that I knew it was. They eventually fixed it but that would've been a £400+ repair if I'd had to pay for it. As soon as it was fixed the iMac was sold and there's no way I'd get another one. Apple is cheapo rubbish dressed in a party frock. OK, lots of people get stuff made in China but few have the neck to charge premium prices for it. And get away with it!
That's a familiar story to me. The Nano I purchased was a Series One bought from Dixons. There was a fault with the screens used in the first batch and I was unlucky enough to receive one. Mine broke down just six and a half weeks after I bought it. I took it back to Dixons and the salesman, who was very embarrassed, explained to me that they couldn't exchange or replace it as Apple had stopped honoring the guaranty. He informed me that when Dixons had tackled Apple about the problem, Apple had issued a veiled threat to stop supplying their products to the company. And Jobs wonders why he's unpopular? :scratch:
My Apologies to the OP and Marco, I've driven this thread off topic. Perhaps a Mod can move the Apple comments to a more appropriate thread... :o :sorry:
the salesman explained that Apple had stopped honouring the guaranty.
They are terrible. What amazes me is that people just seem blind to the shoddy quality and service they get from Apple, they trust the Apple hype more than their own eyes.
I can't talk, we just got out other son a 4th Gen iPod for his Christmas! Only because he really wanted one and we couldn't think of anything to get him. Just hope it works for a reasonable length of time.
gramofone
02-01-2011, 20:27
I agree.
I think we've wandered off the beaten track slightly here. Maybe Marco can start a 'Let's all have a go at Apple' thread somewhere.
Even if I like Apple products, I have to say i had similar breakdown problems with my Chinese-made iMac 24 (twice it has been back - for new power supply and something else both times soon after the warranty expired, so I had to pay to have it fixed).
I had similar breakdown problems with my iMac. Twice it has been back, both times soon after the warranty expired
Which is not brilliant if it's a cheap product but you might expect it. Not usually though. Even cheap electronics tend to be reliable these days. We have a £30 DVD player in the house that has ran perfectly for years. It's been chucked around and used for all sorts of things.
What is unforgivable about Apple is that their products are no more reliable than cheap Chinese junk yet they charge higher prices than anyone else. It is very much a case of style over substance.
And people queue up for it!...
Reid Malenfant
02-01-2011, 21:36
That's a familiar story to me. The Nano I purchased was a Series One bought from Dixons. There was a fault with the screens used in the first batch and I was unlucky enough to receive one. Mine broke down just six and a half weeks after I bought it. I took it back to Dixons and the salesman, who was very embarrassed, explained to me that they couldn't exchange or replace it as Apple had stopped honoring the guaranty. He informed me that when Dixons had tackled Apple about the problem, Apple had issued a veiled threat to stop supplying their products to the company. And Jobs wonders why he's unpopular? :scratch:
Ouch :eek: You do realise that seeing as we are in the EU we are covered by EU law (which can be a pain in the ass i know :doh:), but it can also be very handy.
Anything you purchase new isn't just covered for one year, it's covered for two :eyebrows: The manufacturer may well supply you with a single years warranty but the shop you bought it from has to by law cover the second year part of the guarantee ;) Most people haven't got a clue about this so shops get away with fixing stuff (or replacing it) that they should do...
Please feel free to check this out, you'll find out i'm right :lol:
Anything you purchase new isn't just covered for one year, it's covered for two
That's a fantastic piece of information! Do you know where I can find evidence of that, for future use?
Reid Malenfant
02-01-2011, 23:03
Here is a pic of what i kept from the Daily Mail, you bet i kept it :lol: Sorry for the large pic, at least you can read it ;)
http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad240/speakermark/Image1-1-1.jpg
bigmarty
03-01-2011, 00:00
I agree.
I think we've wandered off the beaten track slightly here. Maybe Marco can start a 'Let's all have a go at Apple' thread somewhere.
Even if I like Apple products, I have to say i had similar breakdown problems with my Chinese-made iMac 24 (twice it has been back - for new power supply and something else both times soon after the warranty expired, so I had to pay to have it fixed).
Folks, its a computer and an operating system, I have used both professionally and personally for the last 17 years and have not had any problems with both.
Marty
Jac Hawk
03-01-2011, 00:27
Well i'm no Apple fan, i know lots of people who are and good luck to em, the only reason i got an ipod was it seemed to be the only portable device to have a decent sized disk, in my opinion the best ipods to go for are the classics, as you can quite easily work on em yourself, i got mine, a 30Gb video (4th or 5th gen i think) second had off ebay for about £30, it was badly scratched both front and back, but all the parts are available for them, so i got a new front and back and a new battery, hey presto, good as new.
Here is the site where you get the parts from http://www.appleipodparts.com/ and they even have illustrations showing you how to get the little buggers apart. :)
ohhh and the best way to listen to hi def is by using your ears, i thought everyone knew that...
Here is a pic of what i kept from the Daily Mail.
Ha ha ha, that is fantastic! Thank you :0)
Ah well, my Nano is ancient history, Got myself a 60gb Archos 5 now, which wee's all over my old iPods for functionality. It's nice to be able to watch 720p movies and Freeview TV, browse the net, Pick up my emails and listen to Lossless music etc, wherever I happen to be... :mex:
Anyway, back on topic: Since buying the Caiman, I've noticed a definite improvement in the quality of sound from my CDP and from files played back on my lappy etc. I don't really care about all the HD tech-speak to be honest, as long as I can hear the difference, and it is involving musically, I'm happy... :bag:
Here is the site where you get the parts from http://www.appleipodparts.com/ and they even have illustrations showing you how to get the little buggers apart. :)
Mike - that is a brilliant link, thanks for that - I've got a 5th gen Classic video that got a scratched screen (from a "protector" :rolleyes:) years ago when I first had it, and it looks like a whole new front will only cost me £7.99! Cheers. :cool:
gramofone
03-01-2011, 13:11
Here is a pic of what i kept from the Daily Mail, you bet i kept it :lol: Sorry for the large pic, at least you can read it ;)
Next time I am in town I shall go into my local Apple Premium Reseller and ask what warranty they are giving on their mac mini's... this should be :interesting:
Jac Hawk
03-01-2011, 13:21
Mike - that is a brilliant link, thanks for that - I've got a 5th gen Classic video that got a scratched screen (from a "protector" :rolleyes:) years ago when I first had it, and it looks like a whole new front will only cost me £7.99! Cheers. :cool:
No prob alex, they're a bit fiddley to get open, if you're gonna do it, i would suggest changing the battery as well, and make sure you have some realy small screwdrivers and eyes like a hawk as some of the screws are tiny, also make sure you get the plastic opening tools , i think you get them as part of the package but if you don't, i would invest in a set.
Reid Malenfant
03-01-2011, 13:47
Next time I am in town I shall go into my local Apple Premium Reseller and ask what warranty they are giving on their mac mini's... this should be :interesting:
The first year of the warranty (guarantee) is covered by the manufacturer unless they offer an extended one for free. The second year has to be covered by the shop that sells whatever it is. If they aren't willing to they are breaking EU law :eyebrows:
Have fun :)
No prob alex, they're a bit fiddley to get open, if you're gonna do it, i would suggest changing the battery as well, and make sure you have some realy small screwdrivers and eyes like a hawk as some of the screws are tiny, also make sure you get the plastic opening tools , i think you get them as part of the package but if you don't, i would invest in a set.
Thanks Mike, I'm ordering the tool kit as well anyway, and as suggested might as well do the battery (sod it - and rear case) at the same time - will look and perform like a brand new ipod for less than thirty quid - nice! :)
Don't tell Steve, he'll have you building the lot Alex if you manage to undercut his Chinese manufacturing partner... :spank: :doh: :wave:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.