the stranger Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Please read the following. It is a quote I cut and pasted out of a thread about Napster at a popular music bulletin board. Pay particular attention to this guys comments on audio quality. I love downloading ENTIRE albums and then making the CD and its case with my jewel case creator. I even get the real artwork from right clicking on it at some site and then saving it. It comes out AMAZING and the sound quality is INCREDIBLE, just like the real CD when released. I have read some that say it is an inferior sound but that is just not the case as I have compared the two. Here, here responded to someone disputing his comments on the sound quality of mp3's... But as far as your evaluation of Mp3s to the sound of CD, you are dead wrong. An Mp3 is a digital form of music and when you download it is a digital tranfer. I do have a tentative ear and know that there is about a .ooooo1% difference. If fact: there are some CD's that sound better than the actual CD because of the sound level they are burned from. You have to have good burning software in order to achieve this. I responded, of course, trying to explain the deal. Any good responses to this guys comments would be good. I'll take any info I can get to try and convince this guy. (Which is probably a waste of time, but I feel compelled to try and refute this guy, to try and preserve the sanctity of audio. How many impressionable people at that board may think he's "in the know"?) This message has been edited by dr destructo on 01-31-2001 at 04:06 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throatsinger Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 I think the critical phrase here is "tentative ear." Nuff said, Steve Sklar Steve Sklar http://khoomei.com http://www.bigskyrocks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny G Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 If someone was a mechanic and they told you that a certain brand of car sucked for numerous reasons too technical for you to understand, then that would be one thing. If every mechanic in the world said it then maybe you would take it seriously..... I haven't heard any engineer who sits in front of speakers all day say good things about the sound quality of an MP3, not once. Ignorance doesn't mean it sounds the same, it means you don't know any better. ------------------ Tiny G Tiny G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansouth Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Tiny G: Ignorance doesn't mean it sounds the same, it means you don't know any better. It could also mean that for many listeners on many systems, the difference is not important. I won't assert that it's imperceptible, but as long as they're enjoying the tune, they probably won't care. There are people who still listen to music on AM radio stations. In fact, I can remember listening to weekly hit countdowns on AM stations - this may predate the term "Top 40" - and I was definitely moved by the music. If I really liked a song, I went out and bought a high fidelity (!) 45 RPM copy. A lot of years have passed, and I wouldn't be satisfied with that sound today, but for many kids who are just discovering the joys of music, it's perfectly acceptable. And it's FREE! My friends and I would have been downloading like crazy if we'd had this technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Tiny G: I haven't heard any engineer who sits in front of speakers all day say good things about the sound quality of an MP3, not once. This is scary- I have! What's even creepier, he's actually quite good at live and broadcast work, day and night, more than full time, which could be an explanation- damaged hearing? I don't think so- here's my theory: This guy listens primarily to radio edits of pop top 10 and "college" music. Now, it is clear to the "non-tentative" ear that this stuff is usually incredibly compressed and maximized- if you doubt it, just fire it up in a software editor and take a look. Does it look like those organic peaks and valleys and waves and troughs you remember from way back when in highschool physics? No, it looks like a barcode. Which is an interesting coincidence, now that I think about it. My question is (partly humorous, but also partly serious), how many bits does it take to accurately describe a square wave? In other words, if your concept of excellent recorded sound is being whacked upside the head with a giant fiberglass hotdog, are you really going to notice if the hotdog is 9 feet long, or 7 feet long? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif http://www.mp3.com/Kosmolith This message has been edited by dadabobro@yahoo.com on 01-31-2001 at 06:12 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave251 Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 dadabobro- Amen to that.... Dave Wendler Instruments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Just tell him to take 90% of the air out of his tires, and see how well his car handles the turns. Preferably at about 80 mph. ...edited due to poor typing skills... This message has been edited by Khan Noonian Singh on 01-31-2001 at 06:59 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salyphus Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Still trying to figure out what a 'tentative ear' is......ROTFL! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny G Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by dadabobro@yahoo.com: In other words, if your concept of excellent recorded sound is being whacked upside the head with a giant fiberglass hotdog, are you really going to notice if the hotdog is 9 feet long, or 7 feet long? NOW THAT'S FUNNY !!!!! And without going into another "ethics of free MP3's on the net" rant, it is not ethical to market MP3 players as "CD quality" devices because they are not. With all the things I hate about 16 bit, 44.1 audio I'm expected to now mix so it sounds good after being encoded to MP3!!! Have you heard some of the new mixes coming out from these boy/girl bands? Encoded as MP3's they sound great, sound's like some genius marketing to me. ------------------ Tiny G Tiny G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbox Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Like it or not, there are plenty of people out there who find MP3 quality to be acceptable. Its something we have to live with. Of course theres MP3 at 128 kbps and then theres MP3 at 192 kbps, and it also makes a difference what the audio quality was to begin with: compare a Lenny Bruce comedy recording with some classical music recorded digitally. You too might find an MP3 of Lenny Bruce to be acceptable (that is if you dont find Lenny Bruce to be objectionable). I personally think that higher quality MP3s are about as good as cassettes except that MP3s lack the hiss, and therefore I dont mind them much as background music. For critical listening, of course, Id prefer a CD any day. Still, its always frustrating to encounter ignorant opinions confidently given as facts. Good luck, dr destructo in your quest to bring enlightenment to the masses! ; -) Enthusiasm powers the world. Craig Anderton's Archiving Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 >>My question is (partly humorous, but also partly serious), how many bits does it take to accurately describe a square wave?<< Very good point. People tell me my MP3s sound great...it's because I make a separate master SPECIFICALLY for the MP3 format, which basically waves good-bye to any sense of dynamics. As long as you're using only the top 4 or 5 bits, it's much easier to get data compression to sound good. Take a good live jazz album and MP3 it, though, and the difference is really obvious. The difference is far less obvious with the overcompressed/maximized stuff that's so prevalent these days. Windows Media Format is better, anyway, but no one wants to hear that! Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Anderton: >>which basically waves good-bye to any sense of dynamics. As long as you're using only the top 4 or 5 bits, it's much easier to get data compression to sound good. I kind of suspected that, I suppose I needed to hear someone else say it.... Great. Forced into the Finalizer. Fini. I wish MP3.com would allow one to upload .wavs so you could use their cd services to make *real* cd's.... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.