Sorta OT: Yucky sound abounds

[CrimsonianKing]

I am really surprised that a disproportionate number of you guys listen to mp3's and think they sound fine. Through any acceptable system, they sound awful. CDs are better. 24/96 is netter yet. Vinyl is beautiful.

 

You all spent a ton of time talking about whether to go with a Vent or a Leslie, or whether a Nord piano beats out a Yamaha. Mono vs. stereo. But no one seems to give a shit about the sound of the reorded music they are listening to.

 

I find that to be bizarre.

 

Maybe it's all about your gear, and not your ears.

 

+1 Thanks.

[WWW]

BTW, Cygnus, the 'blind' test you did comparing mp3s and wav files must not have been only blind, but deaf. Please, the difference is really dramatic for any good listener or engineer.

[Meisenhower]

Low quality mp3's rule the listening devices of most people now. It's amazing to hear the how much information is missing from a low rez mp3.

 

I posted this here before I think: a few years ago I did an informal test between .wav and mp3s. I'm not suggesting it was some laboratory test, it wasnt. I had some people over and played both through my monitors. Nobody could successfully tell the difference with any reasonable accuracy, it was a crapshoot.

 

These guys were musical badasses at the very top of the musical food chain. My point? I'm not sure. But in my living room with Tannoy Monitors, some seriously awesome musicians couldn't tell the difference between mp3 and wav.

 

I was involved with a similar "blind test" a number of years ago and all but one of the participants (a couple of professional classical musicians, a jazz pianist, a mastering engineer, a couple of physicians and a high end audio store owner) had no problem picking out the crap mp3 file.

 

Go figure.

[Cygnus64]

BTW, Cygnus, the 'blind' test you did comparing mp3s and wav files must not have been only blind, but deaf. Please, the difference is really dramatic for any good listener or engineer.

Well, that sounds all big and tough and cool and high and mighty and whatnot, so be it. I did it, it happened. The difference in my living room on Tannoy monitors was not big enough that anyone could accurately tell a difference. Umm, and I've played with a few good musicians here and there.

[Cygnus64]

Low quality mp3's rule the listening devices of most people now. It's amazing to hear the how much information is missing from a low rez mp3.

 

I posted this here before I think: a few years ago I did an informal test between .wav and mp3s. I'm not suggesting it was some laboratory test, it wasnt. I had some people over and played both through my monitors. Nobody could successfully tell the difference with any reasonable accuracy, it was a crapshoot.

 

These guys were musical badasses at the very top of the musical food chain. My point? I'm not sure. But in my living room with Tannoy Monitors, some seriously awesome musicians couldn't tell the difference between mp3 and wav.

 

I was involved with a similar "blind test" a number of years ago and all but one of the participants (a couple of professional classical musicians, a jazz pianist, a mastering engineer, a couple of physicians and a high end audio store owner) had no problem picking out the crap mp3 file.

 

Go figure.

What was your listening environment and what kind of system were you listening to?

[EscapeRocks]

Low quality mp3's rule the listening devices of most people now. It's amazing to hear the how much information is missing from a low rez mp3. They want it cheap (read:free), they want tons of it (thousands of songs) and they want to take it with them everywhere they go.

 

I'm all about convenience, especially when I'm being utilitarian about my musical needs. I don't need to sit in the sweet spot of my system to figure out parts or work on a transcription. I enjoy music on my iPhone and regularly change up the playlists to keep things fresh. I like having a few thousand tunes at my fingertips to listen to in my car when the radio sucks (as it does most often these days).

 

If I have a house full of people and I'm entertaining, I'll always use music from the computer to play background, as to not interrupt the flow of entertainment, or my having to change albums and even can play it on the megabuck home system.

 

However, when it comes to the pure and simple act of "listening to music for pleasure and the sake of listening", for me there is simply no substitute for a high quality system.

 

Is this for everyone? Clearly it isn't.

 

This isn't status consumerism, anymore than someone who is a tennis fanatic puts a tennis court in their backyard. I barely own a television (a small 24" in my bedroom) and have only have basic cable (which never gets watched), because I got HS internet from the same people.

 

Spending $100K on a grand piano to look good in a room in your house, when no one plays is status consumerism.

 

The iPod generation often wouldn't know a decent recording if it bit them in the ass, but since they don't care, it is of no consequence. The days of a discerning general population are largely over and it doesn't appear that it will be coming back anytime soon.

 

That is the real tragedy, isn't that they can't tell the difference, but that they don't care that there IS a difference.

 

+1 this! You said what i wanted to say from the beginning with better words. I'm all about convenience too, but like you said when it's something i really want to absorb while listening, i'll use my decent (no, i don't have a 20k system, i'm not that audiophile, just to make sure)home system, anywhere else a FLAC or even a 320kpbs mp3 does the job.

 

I'll +2 this.

 

It's exactly my feelings. I like convenience as well. I have my 1000's of songs, mostly ripped from CD's on my iPhone. It's great for when I'm at work or have it hooked up to my car stereo.

I also play music over my computer system when I'm sitting here such as this. As was said above, I still go back to my older 2 channel system, and sometimes my old LP's when I want to do some good old fashioned listening. Again, it's what sounds best to me.

I'm glad I can still find new albums in vinyl form.

[ITGITC]

...no one seems to give a shit about the sound of the reorded music they are listening to.

 

I find that to be bizarre.

 

EASY, Bill.

 

You're serving up a lot of finger-pointing to your brothers and sisters on the forum. Where is all the hate coming from?

 

As I alluded to in another thread, time is a big deal for me. I suggest that this is true for most of us here.

 

We're on the go, mobile throughout most of our day. Frankly, when I'm listening in my car the convenience of an MP3 will always trump the superior sound quality of any other format. In the car, travelling 70 MPH down the highway, I can't tell the difference between a standard MP3 file I've downloaded from Amazon.com to a store-bought CD.

 

If I'm at home listening to my fine audio system, then sure, I'd prefer a CD.

 

I've got a bunch of old LPs, but I'm not going to get my turntable out of storage, buy a new cartridge, and go back to that format. Again - for most of us the difference in the sound of vinyl just doesn't trump the convenience and sound of the CD format... or even a well-produced MP3.

 

Nope. I'm not going back to clicks and pops of vinyl or the hiss and speed aberrations of cassette tape.

 

Disagree if you want to, but there's no reason to disparage everyone on the forum simply because you have a different opinion.

 

Tom

 

 

[WWW]

Some things are indeed objective. Compressed music with large segments removed simply does not sound the same as lossless audio. Period. It is not high. It is not mighty. It is sonic fact. Otherwise, no one would have recorded at 15 ips. And no one would record today at 24/96. Any engineer will agree. The problem here is that many of ua have dumbed down our hearing for the sake of convenience. Many more have lost their hearing from loud music. But facts are still facts.

[Bridog6996]

When it comes to the "blind test" thing, a huge variable is the bitrate that the mp3s were encoded with. If you can't tell the difference between a wav and a mp3 encoded in the 64-128kbps range, you probably don't deserve to listen to music, period. :grin: However, only the most finely tuned ears will be able to discern a wav from a 320kbps mp3. I'd bet maybe 10% of people would be able to do it with any sort of consistent accuracy, and that's probably being generous.

 

I don't think anyone is saying they don't care how their music sounds. It's a simple matter of convenience. Until I can fit my turntable, thousands of records, and hifi system into a container the size of a cellphone and take it with me everywhere I go, I'll continue to listen to mp3s 90% of the time. For myself and most of the people in the world, that's all there is to it. By saying that mp3s sound "fine," I think what that really means is that they sound good enough that the trade-off for convenience is definitely worth it.

[Meisenhower]

Low quality mp3's rule the listening devices of most people now. It's amazing to hear the how much information is missing from a low rez mp3.

 

I posted this here before I think: a few years ago I did an informal test between .wav and mp3s. I'm not suggesting it was some laboratory test, it wasnt. I had some people over and played both through my monitors. Nobody could successfully tell the difference with any reasonable accuracy, it was a crapshoot.

 

These guys were musical badasses at the very top of the musical food chain. My point? I'm not sure. But in my living room with Tannoy Monitors, some seriously awesome musicians couldn't tell the difference between mp3 and wav.

 

I was involved with a similar "blind test" a number of years ago and all but one of the participants (a couple of professional classical musicians, a jazz pianist, a mastering engineer, a couple of physicians and a high end audio store owner) had no problem picking out the crap mp3 file.

 

Go figure.

What was your listening environment and what kind of system were you listening to?

 

Listening environment was a professionally engineered and appropriately treated "listening room" in a high end audio boutique owned by a close friend.

 

The system (if I recall correctly was):

 

Speakers: Vandersteen Audio Model 5a's

Front End: Audio Research CD5

Preamp: Audio Research LS26

Amplifier: Audio Research Reference 110

Cables: Kimber Select cables (not sure which ones).

 

This was a VERY nice system (the guy is an ARC dealer), although not quite as revealing as my personal system (even though the listening room WAS better), but it certainly worthy to clearly illustrate the shortcomings of the lower resolution mp3 files.

 

At least it was to us.

[Cygnus64]

The problem here is that many of ua have dumbed down our hearing for the sake of convenience.

I really don't know how to take you seriously with statements like this.

 

I have 19 classical shows in October. Gee, I hope I don't get fired for dumbing down my hearing.

 

Compressed music with large segments removed simply does not sound the same as lossless audio.

Nobody suggested they sounded the same. I said very clearly that nobody could pick one from the other. If I had a better room, better monitors, etc it may have been different. But that's not what happened. What happened is that several Juilliard and Curtis grads who play in world-class groups and could kick most people's musical asses when they were 7 years old could not pick the wav or the mp3 with any accuracy. I'd be glad to lie if it would make you sleep better but that seems really pretty silly, don't you think?

 

However, only the most finely tuned ears will be able to discern a wav from a 320kbps mp3.

Exactly. They were either 256 or 320kbs.

 

Listening environment was a professionally engineered and appropriately treated "listening room" in a high end audio boutique owned by a close friend.

Right. So, for the average Joe with average stuff in an average room, the situation is going to be VERY different.

 

Don't get me started on some of the "blind" string tests: putting 5K violins against $2 million violins. VERY interesting.

[Meisenhower]

The problem here is that many of ua have dumbed down our hearing for the sake of convenience.

I really don't know how to take you seriously with statements like this.

 

I have 19 classical shows in October. Gee, I hope I don't get fired for dumbing down my hearing.

 

Compressed music with large segments removed simply does not sound the same as lossless audio.

Nobody suggested they sounded the same. I said very clearly that nobody could pick one from the other. If I had a better room, better monitors, etc it may have been different. But that's not what happened. What happened is that several Juilliard and Curtis grads who play in world-class groups and could kick most people's musical asses when they were 7 years old could not pick the wav or the mp3 with any accuracy. I'd be glad to lie if it would make you sleep better but that seems really pretty silly, don't you think?

 

However, only the most finely tuned ears will be able to discern a wav from a 320kbps mp3.

Exactly. They were either 256 or 320kbs.

 

Listening environment was a professionally engineered and appropriately treated "listening room" in a high end audio boutique owned by a close friend.

Right. So, for the average Joe with average stuff in an average room, the situation is going to be VERY different.

 

Don't get me started on some of the "blind" string tests: putting 5K violins against $2 million violins. VERY interesting.

 

Or maybe some people just have better "ears" than others.

 

Maybe some are just used to listening more critically that others.

 

Seriously Cygnus, don't blame your Tannoy's, or the rest of your system or your listening room!! You just said you were listening with "Tannoy monitors" in a previous post (like that should have been more than good enough to show the difference, if there was one) and now you're saying "well average stuff in an average room" isn't good enough to tell. Which is it?

 

I can tell the difference between a low rez and high rez mp3 file and a CD on my incredibly average Mackie HR824's that are connected to my iMac in my untreated home office.

 

I don't NEED my Magnapan MG20.1's to hear the difference.

[Cygnus64]

Seriously Cygnus, don't blame your Tannoy's, or the rest of your system or your listening room!! You just said you were listening with "Tannoy monitors" in a previous post (like that should have been more than good enough to show the difference, if there was one) and now you're saying "well average stuff in an average room" isn't good enough to tell. Which is it?

 

Tannoy PB8II's and an Alesis RA 100 is hardly a killer setup. I would call it very "average" in this context, considering you rattled off a pro listening environment and 5 figures worth of gear. My RA100 was 100 bucks. I'm not "blaming" anybody or anything, I'm telling you what happened.

 

Or maybe some people just have better "ears" than others.

I'm not suggesting that they don't. I'm just telling you an event that happened with people who are unbelievably respected in the music world. You can imagine all you want that they have lousy "ears", knock yourself out.

 

Why do you think I asked you about your environment? Do you think those environments are equal? That's like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo, and STILL one of your listeners couldn't do it. Try it in a room like mine with gear like mine and I'm guessing you might get a very similar outcome.

 

It also depends on the source material of course. I'm guessing that in your environment, source material was picked to prove a point? Mine wasn't. It just came up quickly and I found some files that I readily had in both formats.

[CrimsonianKing]

When it comes to the "blind test" thing, a huge variable is the bitrate that the mp3s were encoded with. If you can't tell the difference between a wav and a mp3 encoded in the 64-128kbps range, you probably don't deserve to listen to music, period. :grin: However, only the most finely tuned ears will be able to discern a wav from a 320kbps mp3. I'd bet maybe 10% of people would be able to do it with any sort of consistent accuracy, and that's probably being generous.

 

I don't think anyone is saying they don't care how their music sounds. It's a simple matter of convenience. Until I can fit my turntable, thousands of records, and hifi system into a container the size of a cellphone and take it with me everywhere I go, I'll continue to listen to mp3s 90% of the time. For myself and most of the people in the world, that's all there is to it. By saying that mp3s sound "fine," I think what that really means is that they sound good enough that the trade-off for convenience is definitely worth it.

 

Now, that's a fine honest post. Agree 100% that most people today won't really be able to tell the difference from a lossless format to a 320kpbs. It all depends on the biltrate and How and what program was used to make the rip, i've been ripping my Cds and Vinyls from as long as i can remember and got some tips here and there, so i know my rips are fine.

 

Another thing that i like to do (so people here won't judge me as too old fashioned)is to rip my Vinyls/Cds in FLAC (lossless) and 320kpbs, why? Convenience! The mp3s go into my Ipod, the lossless files i keep in my Digital catalogue in a external HD, why? Just cause most of us don't have the time doesn't mean we can't use convinence in our favor, I take my HD with a device called WDTV that i can plug on basically any TV/system.

[Meisenhower]

Why do you think I asked you about your environment? Do you think those environments are equal? That's like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo, and STILL one of your listeners couldn't do it. Try it in a room like mine with gear like mine and I'm guessing you might get a very similar outcome.

 

It also depends on the source material of course. I'm guessing that in your environment, source material was picked to prove a point? Mine wasn't. It just came up quickly and I found some files that I readily had in both formats.

 

Well, the one listener that couldn't hear the difference wore a "hearing aid", so we cut him some slack.

 

Why would you assume that our blind test was in anyway a "setup" to prove one thing over another, any more than yours "wasn't." You don't know the context of the listening session, nor do you know WHY the test was performed.

 

You "guessed" wrong. but I guess you were just trying to "prove a point."

 

 

and . . . your panel of highly esteemed, unbelievably respected by the music world, musicians have not suffered any hearing loss either!!

 

[Theo Verelst]

Technically, sounds with very little high or by the nature of the production extremely boring high frequency content is just about the only material where the difference between a mp3 and a uncompressed wav or flac (lossless audio compression for various standards) is small. A "normal" CD with the wellknown produced music on it, and even including the harsh mid-range from a lot of cd masters shold have so much and varied high in it that I'd bet I could get a random person to hear the difference on a phone-speaker. There's a slight sampling (DA conversion) error masking with mp3 (*slight*) that might make some people like the mellow sound of an mp3 over a CD.

 

About the monitoring: it comes across to me that a lot of messing has been done on all kinds of publicly available materials, probably based on not-the-best-monitoring, or second (read: third) rate mastering companies, or simply after the taste of certain people who are not up to par with certain golden studio and recording standards. The result: neutrally played those materials are regularly sub-bearable, but probably sound ok-ish on similar systems as they were monitored on. Happens to synths too, I know this from the PC3.

 

http://www.theover.org/Keybdmg/Screenshot-165bm.png

[CrimsonianKing]

Low quality mp3's rule the listening devices of most people now. It's amazing to hear the how much information is missing from a low rez mp3. They want it cheap (read:free), they want tons of it (thousands of songs) and they want to take it with them everywhere they go.

 

I'm all about convenience, especially when I'm being utilitarian about my musical needs. I don't need to sit in the sweet spot of my system to figure out parts or work on a transcription. I enjoy music on my iPhone and regularly change up the playlists to keep things fresh. I like having a few thousand tunes at my fingertips to listen to in my car when the radio sucks (as it does most often these days).

 

If I have a house full of people and I'm entertaining, I'll always use music from the computer to play background, as to not interrupt the flow of entertainment, or my having to change albums and even can play it on the megabuck home system.

 

However, when it comes to the pure and simple act of "listening to music for pleasure and the sake of listening", for me there is simply no substitute for a high quality system.

 

Is this for everyone? Clearly it isn't.

 

This isn't status consumerism, anymore than someone who is a tennis fanatic puts a tennis court in their backyard. I barely own a television (a small 24" in my bedroom) and have only have basic cable (which never gets watched), because I got HS internet from the same people.

 

Spending $100K on a grand piano to look good in a room in your house, when no one plays is status consumerism.

 

The iPod generation often wouldn't know a decent recording if it bit them in the ass, but since they don't care, it is of no consequence. The days of a discerning general population are largely over and it doesn't appear that it will be coming back anytime soon.

 

That is the real tragedy, isn't that they can't tell the difference, but that they don't care that there IS a difference.

 

+1 this! You said what i wanted to say from the beginning with better words. I'm all about convenience too, but like you said when it's something i really want to absorb while listening, i'll use my decent (no, i don't have a 20k system, i'm not that audiophile, just to make sure)home system, anywhere else a FLAC or even a 320kpbs mp3 does the job.

 

I'll +2 this.

 

It's exactly my feelings. I like convenience as well. I have my 1000's of songs, mostly ripped from CD's on my iPhone. It's great for when I'm at work or have it hooked up to my car stereo.

I also play music over my computer system when I'm sitting here such as this. As was said above, I still go back to my older 2 channel system, and sometimes my old LP's when I want to do some good old fashioned listening. Again, it's what sounds best to me.

I'm glad I can still find new albums in vinyl form.

 

Many musicians have been saying that Vinyls has made a come back (in a way), i hear of more and more people interested in it, maybe we're not the majority but trust me, some of us out there still care and are tired of this crap sound quality they've been feeding us with those lossy formats.

[Meisenhower]

Why do you think I asked you about your environment? Do you think those environments are equal? That's like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo, and STILL one of your listeners couldn't do it. Try it in a room like mine with gear like mine and I'm guessing you might get a very similar outcome.

 

A Ferrari and a Yugo can both be noisy and hardly constitute a proper "listening environment" (besides, I prefer listening to the exhaust note of a Ferrari to most things on the radio anyway). Not sure what your point is except trying to compare two items that serve the same purpose at vastly different price points.

 

As I stated previous (which you continue to ignore in your rebuttals), I've listened to two "identically" named mp3 files on an iMac hooked up to Mackie HR824s (not crap, but not exactly world class either), except one was a standard resolution download and one was a high resolution download and I could tell the difference between the two. I didn't know which was which, during the listening process, until I immediately heard the difference between the two.

 

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

YMMV

 

 

[Cygnus64]

Why do you think I asked you about your environment? Do you think those environments are equal? That's like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo, and STILL one of your listeners couldn't do it. Try it in a room like mine with gear like mine and I'm guessing you might get a very similar outcome.

 

It also depends on the source material of course. I'm guessing that in your environment, source material was picked to prove a point? Mine wasn't. It just came up quickly and I found some files that I readily had in both formats.

 

Well, the one listener that couldn't hear the difference wore a "hearing aid", so we cut him some slack.

Why would you assume that our blind test was in anyway a "setup" to prove one thing over another, any more than yours "wasn't." You don't know the context of the listening session, nor do you know WHY the test was performed.

 

 

 

Ummm, errr, aaah, I dunno. Maybe it's something to do with the farking $45,000 speakers? Or the pro-built room? Or the other gear that's worth as much as a house? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

 

You "guessed" wrong. but I guess you were just trying to "prove a point."

 

Dude, you couldn't have proved "my point" better for me if I paid you too. I don't know if you're trolling or not: Are you seriously trying to compare my $400 monitors, $100 amp and living room with the list you rattled off? Christ, for that kind of money the guy with the hearing aid should have got it too. A totally deaf guy should get it with that kind of coin, and you're trying to compare the two scenarios? Lunacy, man.

 

and . . . your panel of highly esteemed, unbelievably respected by the music world, musicians have not suffered any hearing loss either!!

 

I have no idea. But I'm sure that you could easily get a principal position in the Cleveland Orchestra with your extraordinary talents too, any idiot can. You just show up with your golden ears and they'll shower you with accolades. Maybe you can conduct, that gig pays $1.4 million.

[Meisenhower]

 

Dude, you couldn't have proved "my point" better for me if I paid you too. I don't know if you're trolling or not: Are you seriously trying to compare my $400 monitors, $100 amp and living room with the list you rattled off? Christ, for that kind of money the guy with the hearing aid should have got it too. A totally deaf guy should get it with that kind of coin, and you're trying to compare the two scenarios? Lunacy, man.

 

And for the THIRD time, you're IGNORING the part where I said I've personally heard the difference on relatively inexpensive monitors being played on a computer!

 

Are you going to try and do it a fourth time now?

 

[Meisenhower]

and . . . your panel of highly esteemed, unbelievably respected by the music world, musicians have not suffered any hearing loss either!!

 

I have no idea. But I'm sure that you could easily get a principal position in the Cleveland Orchestra with your extraordinary talents too, any idiot can. You just show up with your golden ears and they'll shower you with accolades. Maybe you can conduct, that gig pays $1.4 million.

 

Sorry, I don't need a principal position in the Cleveland Orchestra, as my particularly extraordinary talents aren't in demand by them, but don't you worry, I get plenty of accolades already in my current work. It's nice of you to be considerate of us "idiots" and find us places to work.

 

The conducting posting? No thanks. That would force me to have to take a pay cut and I need every penny to keep my stereo running (any idea how expensive it is to retube a power amp with 32 power tubes).

 

Seriously dude, get a grip. You seem to be taking this kind of personally, when all I did was say my group had a different experience than your group did.

 

Go have a drink or maybe listen to some soothing music . . . . just make sure it's not a crappy mp3 . . . but wait, you can't tell the difference.

[mate stubb]

Jeez,

 

This thing turned into a food fight while I was away.

 

How about this - I don't care about high fidelity any more for my personal listening. I listen for the music. I do care about my live sound.

[Cygnus64]

And for the THIRD time, you're IGNORING the part where I said I've personally heard the difference on relatively inexpensive monitors being played on a computer!

 

 

That's great. We should all chip in and get you a cake or something. Good for you. Bravo. Bravissimo. Well done. That's amazing. I'm impressed. 3 cheers for you.

 

I have a really bendy thumb. I have perfect pitch, perfect bath water, and the ability to communicate with corn. Let's get me a cake too and celebrate my greatness. Perhaps one with a really bendy thumb as a decoration on top.

 

The point that you're making for me: most people can't hear the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and a wav when played on average stuff. If you can, that's great. That's why we're gonna get you that cake. If you think that it's some kind of great musical litmus test, you couldn't be more mistaken. That's beside the point since most people cannot do this, including many serious musicians. And no, there is nothing wrong with their "ears", nor did they "dumb down their hearing" (as wdl suggested) nor are they experiencing significant hearing loss in their 30s or any other type of malady.

 

The conducting posting? No thanks. That would force me to have to take a pay cut

He gets that for 12 weeks of work.

[reidmc]

Several things have killed expression and nuance in pop music. Among them are the rise of metal and hip-hop........All that said, those of us who still have audiophile 2-channel audio can literally stun interested young listeners by playing them some real music.....

http://www.macosxaudio.com/forums/download/file.php?avatar=4674_1263587685.gif

I think kanker is gesturing to metal and hip-hop not being considered "real music." Sorry, buddy, both are here to stay. Even in "God's Country."

 

Jeez. . .I hate to interrupt the main event here but when my post is misread and followed up with a non sequitur I gotta represent. I used the term "real music" to describe the list of artists that followed the term (cut off by Kanker, for some reason), not as an unrelated comment to an earlier sentence. I'm happy to say that I think there is some great metal and hip hop, though in my own little world, the proportion of music in those genres I'd classify as "real music" is quite a bit lower than the proportion I'd identify in genres like jazz or classical.

 

As for both metal and hip-hop being "here to stay" I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Wonder Bread and Gilbert Gottfried are apparently here to stay, too.

[reidmc]

As for comments on the main event, I think most everyone would agree musical artistry and recording fidelity both contribute to the enjoyment of music, and that in general, primacy has to go to the former.

 

As for the big bucks conductor, he (and 99% of the time it is a he) would disagree with the premise that the twelve weeks he is on the podium are the only weeks he is "working" that gig.

[Meisenhower]

And for the THIRD time, you're IGNORING the part where I said I've personally heard the difference on relatively inexpensive monitors being played on a computer!

 

 

That's great. We should all chip in and get you a cake or something. Good for you. Bravo. Bravissimo. Well done. That's amazing. I'm impressed. 3 cheers for you.

 

I have a really bendy thumb. I have perfect pitch, perfect bath water, and the ability to communicate with corn. Let's get me a cake too and celebrate my greatness. Perhaps one with a really bendy thumb as a decoration on top.

 

Just curious Cygnus, are you always this juvenile when people disagree with you or do you just need a nap?

 

No point in continuing a debate with someone more interested in launching personal "opinion" about someone else (read: snide commentary), rather than rationally discuss the relative merits of their position, and would prefer a "food fight" to a lively debate.

 

Since you cannot provide a cogent explanation about WHY your test group couldn't hear the difference (except for the price of the system and the listening environment, which was already negated by my later statements), you resort to childish remarks and continue to repeat the same BS statement that "most people can't hear the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav when played on average stuff."

 

1. You cannot speak for most people.

2. You don't possibly have enough data to support such an assertion.

3. Repeating the same wrong statement over and over again, doesn't make it right.

 

If you can indeed "communicate with corn" (as you suggest you can), perhaps you should open a can of creamstyle and have a chat, since it's unlikely that corn will take a contrary position and will support your all riduculous assertions.

 

All the "trash talk" aside, its nice to see that someone else sits around with a group of friends to listen to music!! It really is becoming a rare thing for even like minded musicians to spend an evening in front of a stereo listening to great music while quaffing a libation. High Five, Cygnus!

 

 

 

 

[synthizen2]

Most modern productions don't lend themselves well to high-end systems anyway. They produce stuff specifically for the iPod generation. After a while it becomes the new 'norm'. Producers deliberately distort tracks to produce some kind of retro vibe, i.e. like playing Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon on a cheesy monophonic 1965 turntable (which is how a lot of people were first introduced to those albums). Those 2 albums were specifically produced to create a kind of 'stereo wet dream' sound. But you needed a good stereo/amp/speakers to properly reproduce it, which a lot of people back then didn't have.

 

Now it's the other way around, where people are listening to compressed crap on gear that the 1973 music fan would have killed to have. Weird, isn't it? Maybe the human ear can only take so much 'high-end' listening before resorting back to the familiar.

 

[Cygnus64]

 

Since you cannot provide a cogent explanation about WHY your test group couldn't hear the difference (except for the price of the system and the listening environment, which was already negated by my later statements), you resort to childish remarks and continue to repeat the same BS statement that "most people can't hear the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav when played on average stuff."

 

1. You cannot speak for most people.

2. You don't possibly have enough data to support such an assertion.

3. Repeating the same wrong statement over and over again, doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

Big words. Hey, how bout a test?

 

I'll make 2 versions of 5 diverse samples, One 24 bit/44.1 .wav and one high-quality mp3, not below 256kps or above 330. I'll upload them on one .wav so nobody can distinguish the difference in format (which will add nothing to the compressed mp3). I'll email the answers to a trusted member of the forum. I'll even email them to you via futureme. You'll have the advantage of listening on any gear you wish since it can't be monitored, so fire up 'dem 45 grand speakers. You can even look at the waveforms in an editor, knock yourself out.

 

Everything will be what I said it is, I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay to serious a musician to do anything else. I stand by my words, my experiences and my musicianship. Besides, that won't be an issue since you have the ability to tell, it would be like trying to "trick" me on a perfect pitch test, it can't and won't happen. Prove me wrong.

 

Get all 5 and I'll issue a very sincere public apology. I'll write a string arrangement for you or play on one of your charts for free. I've played with half the rock bands on the planet so I probably know what I'm doing.

 

Alright? And now you can give a million reasons why you won't do it.

[ITGITC]

 

I love this forum.

 

Hell, in my day we counted the transistors in our portable radios. If it had more than just a couple, you got to play God.

 

Tom

 

[Meisenhower]

 

Since you cannot provide a cogent explanation about WHY your test group couldn't hear the difference (except for the price of the system and the listening environment, which was already negated by my later statements), you resort to childish remarks and continue to repeat the same BS statement that "most people can't hear the difference between a 320k mp3 and a wav when played on average stuff."

 

1. You cannot speak for most people.

2. You don't possibly have enough data to support such an assertion.

3. Repeating the same wrong statement over and over again, doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

Big words. Hey, how bout a test?

 

I'll make 2 versions of 5 diverse samples, One 24 bit/44.1 .wav and one high-quality mp3, not below 256kps or above 330. I'll upload them on one .wav so nobody can distinguish the difference in format (which will add nothing to the compressed mp3). I'll email the answers to a trusted member of the forum. I'll even email them to you via futureme. You'll have the advantage of listening on any gear you wish since it can't be monitored, so fire up 'dem 45 grand speakers. You can even look at the waveforms in an editor, knock yourself out.

 

Everything will be what I said it is, I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay to serious a musician to do anything else. I stand by my words, my experiences and my musicianship. Besides, that won't be an issue since you have the ability to tell, it would be like trying to "trick" me on a perfect pitch test, it can't and won't happen. Prove me wrong.

 

Get all 5 and I'll issue a very sincere public apology. I'll write a string arrangement for you or play on one of your charts for free. I've played with half the rock bands on the planet so I probably know what I'm doing.

 

Alright? And now you can give a million reasons why you won't do it.

 

I don't need to give a million reasons. Only one.

 

You're a self aggrandizing child that I'm not going to indulge.

 

The only thing I'll see from you now on is:

 

*** You are ignoring this user ***

Toggle the display of this post

 

 

Ahhhh . . . . .. carry on.