Members Jazz Ad Posted December 28, 2007 Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 I think it's a matter of consumers wanting convenience more than sound quality. In time, the sound quality will go back up.I doubt it. It's been going down for years and years.My 1985 Sony tape Walkman sounds much, much better than any mp3 player on the market.Listening to music on computers is nothing short of dumb from an audio point of view. Even worse for cellphones.People think CDs are too expensive to buy but they will burn money on phonering melodies.Quality is never put upfront in music player commercials. It's all about how much you can store and how many gadgets you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted December 28, 2007 Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 Besides sampling errors(yeah, the math ain't perfect Mr. Nyquist), most music gets smashed now and tailored for less-than-perfect speakers. This was in a number of tech literature articles sometime between 6 and 9 months ago. Visual examples I created to send to family members are on 'puter at home. I'll post 'em when I get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted December 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 Yeah, it's amazing how good my vinyl albums sound compared to the "remastered" CD's that come out of the same material. When my copy of Physical Graffiti which I bought 32 years ago sounds better than the "remastered from the original master recording" CD that came out recently...you know something isn't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members countrybass Posted December 28, 2007 Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 But seriously, back in my day we would buy and album, then go home and listen to it all the way through while reading the liner notes. That's all we really had besides just 4 channels on the TV. Now it's more just background noise and I'll admit that's how I listen to stuff now....while surfing the net or doing something else around the house. It's been a long time since I just sat down and listened to something. Hear, hear!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jazz Ad Posted December 28, 2007 Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 I agree and sadly I'm guilty of this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jbryant8159 Posted December 28, 2007 Members Share Posted December 28, 2007 Exactly.High-fidelity was never TRULY a mass-market phenomenon.Most were happy with cassette and 8-track in the days of Hi-fi, and the digital realm has done more to increase access than we can even imagine.Hi-fi is still out there for those who desire it... That's very true. I'm glad I kept all my vinyl. It takes a pretty serious monetary investment, patience and care to hear "records" at their best. I don't have serious audiophile grade stuff but a damn good turntable and I like to listen to the LP's at home. CDs or MP3s are fine for the car or computer. And 256 kbs is my minimum for ripping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members funkrockfreedomfighter Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I only download at high sampling rates, none of this 128 garbage Seriously, anyone ever hear of FLAC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 You couldn't exactly take your record player + tube amp + column speakers on the road with you. Something had to be portable. And 8-track really wasn't that bad. It actually had a lot of potential. But the point to them was portability. And no matter how good the medium was, no automotive audio system could give the 8-track justice. The 8-track concept wasn't bad, but in general the implementation sucked, very susceptible to cross-track bleed through and noise. The tracks were too small and close together for the tolerances of the mechanical components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members James Hart Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I run 320 bit max VBR MP3s via Foobar2000 (audio player) on WinXP thru a M-Audio Delta 44 sound card thru a mid 70s Sony STR-6800 (70wpc silver faced receiver) thru an 80s MK 15" sub and a pair of 80s Koss bookshelves..... Best Fidelity I've heard in a sub $2k system. but then I have been a rock bassist for almost 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members James Hart Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 Seriously, anyone ever hear of FLAC? my ears cannot differentiate between a .flac and a 320 bit max VBR MP3. I download a LOT of concert bootlegs... they all get reripped to high quality MP3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 There is nothing in this world that will ever make that album sound good. The effects used on keys and vocals were digital. That and the complete cleanness of the mix were outstanding for 1983. Whether you thought it sounded good or not, it sold 3 million copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I offset the compression with my Lava cables..there is a dramatic difference! Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 There is an article over at Rolling Stone about "In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever". It's an interesting article...talking about sound compression and how producers are gearing music now to play through little computer speakers and what-not while we're losing fidelity. I know it's been talked about before, but this article is pretty comprehensive. I find it funny that the magazine that pushes {censored} music on people is worried about how their {censored} music sounds. {censored}ing {censored}heads. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 I offset the compression with my Lava cables..there is a dramatic difference!Dan Perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I find it funny that the magazine that pushes {censored} music on people is worried about how their {censored} music sounds. {censored}ing {censored}heads. Dan BRILLIANT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted December 29, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I find it funny that the magazine that pushes {censored} music on people is worried about how their {censored} music sounds. {censored}ing {censored}heads.Dan I was waiting for someone to come along and bad-mouth Rolling Stone. So you don't believe the article now just because it was in Rolling Stone? Care to clarify it other than just "{censored}ing {censored}heads"? Or is that the extent of your research? Or better yet, have nothing to contribute? Then STFU. Stop being negative, I hate the negativity on this forum. Criticism is one thing, just being negative for the sake of being negative is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I was waiting for someone to come along and bad-mouth Rolling Stone. So you don't believe the article now just because it was in Rolling Stone? Care to clarify it other than just "{censored}ing {censored}heads"? Or is that the extent of your research? Or better yet, have nothing to contribute? Then STFU. Stop being negative, I hate the negativity on this forum. Criticism is one thing, just being negative for the sake of being negative is something else. Rolling Stone is a joke IMO. I've never seen a magizine with less creativity and more commercialism in my life. If you like it, knock yourself out with a subscription. I'm allowed to say they suck if I want to. As far as the article..I didn't say I believed nor disbelieved it...I found it ironic that Rolling Stone published it. Although I am under no obligation to justify anything to you..it's my opinion. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted December 29, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 Rolling Stone is a joke IMO. I've never seen a magizine with less creativity and more commercialism in my life. If you like it, knock yourself out with a subscription. I'm allowed to say they suck if I want to.As far as the article..I didn't say I believed nor disbelieved it...I found it ironic that Rolling Stone published it. Although I am under no obligation to justify anything to you..it's my opinion.Dan I don't subscribe to it, don't even pick it up at the news stand. I followed a link from another forum about something else, saw the article there and read it, was interesting and posted it here. Was figuring that people would talk about the merits of the article and the contents of it...which for the most part we have been. Not commenting on where it came from. The article stands by itself to me and I judged it from it's content alone, not where it was presented. But hey, who am I to stand in the way of your opinion. Hate away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 I don't subscribe to it, don't even pick it up at the news stand. I followed a link from another forum about something else, saw the article there and read it, was interesting and posted it here. Was figuring that people would talk about the merits of the article and the contents of it...which for the most part we have been. Not commenting on where it came from. The article stands by itself to me and I judged it from it's content alone, not where it was presented. But hey, who am I to stand in the way of your opinion. Hate away! Thanks for your blessing:wave: Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted December 29, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 Thanks for your blessing:wave: Dan No problem! With us both online now it's almost like we're PMing each other on AIM or MSN or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 The 8-track concept wasn't bad, but in general the implementation sucked, very susceptible to cross-track bleed through and noise. The tracks were too small and close together for the tolerances of the mechanical components. Reasons Muntz preferred the 4-track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 The effects used on keys and vocals were digital. That and the complete cleanness of the mix were outstanding for 1983. Whether you thought it sounded good or not, it sold 3 million copies. You equate popularity with quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 No problem! With us both online now it's almost like we're PMing each other on AIM or MSN or something. I know..weird! Seriously though...someone bought me a RS subscription and I've grown to hate it over the last few months. I don't even read em anymore. This is where my distaste for RS stems from. NOt to say that they don't have poignant articles..it's just the magazine as a whole offsets any good they might have done IMO. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 You equate popularity with quality?The poster in question, who wasn't you, specifically said there's nothing that can make that album sound good. Since it sold 3 million albums it sounded good to more than just few people. In a thread regarding recording and the quality thereof, I don't really give a crap if someone likes 90125 or not. That is irrelevant to the mix, which was outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mogwix Posted December 29, 2007 Members Share Posted December 29, 2007 Honestly to my ears recordings sound better than ever. They don't have the dynamic range of the analog days but with a virtually zero noise floor and bone flat freq response from 0hz to 20khz, I'd say technology is way better. Personally listening to the old records I curiously wonder what they would sound like had they'd been recorded in a modern recording studio... to me I think they would be way better and I would enjoy them a lot more. I seriously don't understand why people revere vintage recording and playback equipment.... the stuff sounds like crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.