Moderators Kindness Posted December 29, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 29, 2007 I don't like to agree with Kindness....because the guy is just too nice and cool and everyone likes him (who can trust that? ) I hate that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Real MC Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 There are some really bad mp3 codecs out there, the good ones have better fidelity. I use Razorlame, and I hear very little difference between original CD tracks and mp3s. And I also agree that Rolling Stone is a poor publication too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted December 30, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 30, 2007 In every blind sound test albums and tapes beat CD's and MP3's for sound because of the harmonics that are present that mimic live sound. I think fidelity died a while back. Don't confuse what sounds good with fidelity. Fidelity is accuracy, and reel-to-reel tapes and CDs are much more accurate than LPs. LPs may sound good, but they are not a higher fidelity medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I hate that guy. I wouln't go that far.But he does hate Flats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I wonder if the folks in this thread could tell the difference between a 256k encoded MP3, a CD, a cassette and an LP all played through the same system. The test would have to be double-blind of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super Bass Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I wonder if the folks in this thread could tell the difference between a 256k encoded MP3, a CD, a cassette and an LP all played through the same system. The test would have to be double-blind of course. Will Lava cables be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I wonder if the folks in this thread could tell the difference between a 256k encoded MP3, a CD, a cassette and an LP all played through the same system. The test would have to be double-blind of course. I think it would depend on the system it was played back through. A cheap boom box will not not show the same limitations as a $5000 sound system(or even $200)A better sound system will bring inadequacies to surface quick, but to some it won't matter. My wife can't tell the difference between an SX P fretless and a Warwick:eek: Different strokes I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I think it would depend on the system it was played back through. A cheap boom box will not not show the same limitations as a $5000 sound system(or even $200) A better sound system will bring inadequacies to surface quick, but to some it won't matter. My wife can't tell the difference between an SX P fretless and a Warwick:eek: Different strokes I guess. I think reality should be a part of the test. My assumption is that no one in this thread has a $5000 sound system that they use to regularly listen to music on so using such a system is a waste.As far as your wife not telling the difference between an SX and a Warwick, I'd venture to say that no one at a bar can tell the difference either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 What if my reality isn't your reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 What if my reality isn't your reality? What's your reality? Do you own a $5000 sound system that you listen to your LP's on? Do you own a $1500 system? How 'bout a $500 system? Maybe $200?You've got me really curious now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I think reality should be a part of the test. My assumption is that no one in this thread has a $5000 sound system that they use to regularly listen to music on so using such a system is a waste. As far as your wife not telling the difference between an SX and a Warwick, I'd venture to say that no one at a bar can tell the difference either. I do agree here, I was just stating this for arguments sake. Every speaker setup I have is decent enough to tell low quality vs. high quality music format. I have lot of Klipsh audio(not the best, but very good) for my main entertainment center and my computer. I don't like to listen to {censored}ty speakers. I have always liked bass, and I want to hear it. I can hear that something is missing on MP3's @ 128kb/s and less. 192kb/s is much better. I know someone that had an awesome system from the 70's. The LP's sounded great, even compared to the CD's that were digitally remastered. That system would be about $10,000 now, thats asuming you kind find this kind of quality now. He tried to replace the record player and could not find anything as well built.I also agree that no one in a bar cares what kind of bass you play, unless there are other bass players in the room. And even if they notice, it's going to be the playing and not the "tone". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 What's your reality? Do you own a $5000 sound system that you listen to your LP's on? Do you own a $1500 system? How 'bout a $500 system? Maybe $200? You've got me really curious now. Reality is what you make of it!:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Reality is what you make of it!:poke:Exactly what do you mean by this in the context of my post that you quoted. I'm familiar with the quote but am missing how you're applying it in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well, mostly I was just joking around. But also I was kinda saying that if you are happy listening to music on your stereo, then do it. Otherwise save up and buy different stuff.This was also playing along with bnyswonger's comment. I took his comment as being a joke () and was poking fun at you(:poke:). If I offended you, I will withdraw my comments as this just was a friendly conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well, mostly I was just joking around. But also I was kinda saying that if you are happy listening to music on your stereo, then do it. Otherwise save up and buy different stuff. This was also playing along with bnyswonger's comment. I took his comment as being a joke ( ) and was poking fun at you(:poke:). If I offended you, I will withdraw my comments as this just was a friendly conversation. No offense. I just didn't get it. I'm a little slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scary Bill Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 I don't think that you are slow! I am from time to time unclear, though. So, how do we go about this "Mythbusting". We could listen to different rips of the same song( different quality's), but I still think that the average person won't hear what I hear( and probably others on HCBF). I don't mean this as a boast, either. I am just really picky:mad: It pisses me of to listen to FM radio sometimes, just because of the over compression and what not.I guess my long-winded point is: Most people don't notice, care, or have the necessary equipment to distinguish between really accurate reproduction and an OK reproduction.This is the reason sound quality is down. The average person doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 To answer your question, Jeff - I've had nice systems in the past - can't really afford one now. I have some pedestrian yamaha 3 ways and a harmon kardon reciever in the family room. The ex wound up with the nice JBL L100s.When I want to listen to something closely, I take it down to my studio and listen through the monitors. I feel very comfortable in being able differentiate between an MP3 file and a CD through any relatively accurate system if you played them both back to back. CDs and LPs are a little tougher, a lot depends on how the record was mastered and the playback equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Reality is what you make of it!:poke: Reality is WAY overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted December 30, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 30, 2007 I feel very comfortable in being able differentiate between an MP3 file and a CD through any relatively accurate system if you played them both back to back. CDs and LPs are a little tougher, a lot depends on how the record was mastered and the playback equipment. I'm with you 100%. edit: I'm referring to what people commonly use as MP3s. I haven't spent any time listening to the highest rate conversions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 For the record: I'm a fan of "hot" signals with wide dynamic range. However, as a parent and condo dweller, it's MUCH more practical to set the volume at a level that is appropriate and not have to worry about "surprises" when the dynamics catch you off guard. I can't count the number of times I've been watching movies at a level where the dialogue is barely audible and the action sequences rattle the windows. If all of my music was like that, I'd enjoy it much less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted December 30, 2007 Author Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Can I tell the difference between an LP and a CD? I can sometimes. For instance I can tell the difference between my LP version of "Physical Graffiti" and the recent "remastered" CD version of it. Going in blind on a recent song or album I'm not familiar with though, no...I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between a CD and an LP. A CD and an mp3 though? I'd like to say I could, but who knows. All depends on the encoding of the mp3 etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 30, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 30, 2007 The easiest distinction between a lower res MP3 and a CD is the "slurring" of the cymbals and lyrics. Scary Bill mentioned the difference between 128 and 192 kb/s. The 192 is very listenable to me although I still notice some slight cluttering. It doesn't impact my listening experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 The easiest distinction between a lower res MP3 and a CD is the "slurring" of the cymbals and lyrics. Scary Bill mentioned the difference between 128 and 192 kb/s. The 192 is very listenable to me although I still notice some slight cluttering. It doesn't impact my listening experience. I don't doubt this. I encode all of my MP3's at 192kbps and higher and find the quality just fine for me regardless of where I play them...home...office...portable player...van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Perfessor Posted December 30, 2007 Members Share Posted December 30, 2007 Don't confuse what sounds good with fidelity. Fidelity is accuracy, and reel-to-reel tapes and CDs are much more accurate than LPs. LPs may sound good, but they are not a higher fidelity medium. Well, be that as it may, then what good is it if it has higher fidelity but sounds worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted December 30, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well, be that as it may, then what good is it if it has higher fidelity but sounds worse?It's more accurate.Ever see the Matrix? Morpheus offers Neo a red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill will keep him in the matrix, unaware of reality. The red pill will reveal the truth.High fidelity is all about audio truth. A high fidelity system's goal is to let you hear how the recording actually sounds. Bad recordings will sound bad. Good recordings will sound good. Superb recordings will sound superb. That's what good it is. It's a red pill attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.