The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
New iPod Touch + WIFI iTunes STORE (=the CD is dead) Condenser Microphones
Old 7th September 2007
  #91
Lives for gear
 
neilio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopamine View Post
<< the beauty, texture and art of music in in the sonics, and MP3's pretty much destroy 80% of that. >>

How many listening tests have you done to determine that? Any blind or controlled tests using various bit rates?

To say that mp3's destroy about 80% on the beauty, texture and art in music is absurd.

Maybe you heard some improperly ripped mp3's. I can't understand how you would make that comment otherwise. I have to listen very hard to hear any differences in CD VS a 320 kb mp3.
agreed....ive done the test myself and i found 128 aac to be nearly indistinguishable, especially in my car.

now aac isnt mp3....i do not like mp3's per se, i find there to be a smearing of the high end and a disposal of the low end...

...very comparable to using stock say,888's and a usd, and then patching in a very good clock.
Old 7th September 2007
  #92
Lives for gear
 
abell1234's Avatar
 

Dr Bill you need to relax...man your trying to fight a glacier. People are downloading music right now (lots of them). All I'm saying is the music is being freed and you can't stop it. That seems to be the case, and it does not mean your not gonna eat, it means that people are gonna release albums on the internet instead of stores. I still think there are plenty of people who would buy an album in physical form to support the artist and to have the hard copy.
"but being an artist is not about following the herd. It's about leading the way, breaking new ground, opening closed minds."
Its funny we start talking about "new" ways to distribute music and making things free and possibly "breaking new ground" and you resist, and call us crazy. sweet That must mean we are on to something
Old 7th September 2007
  #93
Lives for gear
 
kingofswing's Avatar
[QUOTE=neilio;1482582]
i only use the aac codec, and IT IS VERY close to cd sound,and also right there with anything radio does to its songs.

the aac codec i use, is used with my own cd's and sound very,very good, for being 1/10th the size as original.
QUOTE]

AAC vs MP3 - has that been done before? please excuse me if it has.

Why? well i think the aac format is less detailed over the mp3 format. It seems a little scooped out in the mids. That is why Apple's itune store is aload of crap imo. I am not paying for acc files, give me .wavs not garbage.
Old 7th September 2007
  #94
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drockfresh View Post
I think the problem is there is no strong demand from the consumer listening market for higher than MP3 quality. I reached this conclusion from talking with the people directly around me. Even some of my musician friends have said they can't hear the difference between itunes mp3 and cd and don't care. My girlfriend doesn't care about it either. The key is to educate the market. I don't think the demand will be there until recording quality is advertised as 'something better' to listeners.
Dock you are so correct, the bands i record, all the care about is putting there music on myspace, thats all they want at least most of them...
But from a production and gear point, you can still tell the pro gear is being used on music that you hear on mp3, hey just so they do not find a way to get rid of the studio, who cares what medium sticks.
Old 7th September 2007
  #95
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
all right then grandpa, its time for bed, because now your being an insufferable,crusty old dikk.
Nope. Sorry, it's not 8:00PM yet is it? heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
you clearly are a bit uninformed, to own and use an ipod, one need not to use codecs as full aiff/wav files aka;full cd quality will work well,at diminished storage space.
I'm well aware of that, thanks for reminding my feeble old brain. How many people running iPods have even ONE WAV or AIFF files at 44.1 in them? My guess....about .002%. And that's not what this thread was about anyway, it was about WIFI wireless delivery killing off the CD. WIFI deilvery = even lower quality audio. THat is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
i only use the aac codec, and IT IS VERY close to cd sound,and also right there with anything radio does to its songs.
Great! I'm happy for you. BTW, I don't hold radio up as the audio quality standard to which we should attain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
if your kids ipod music sounds like ****,thats because they are downloading crappy quality,pirated stuff.
WRONG. My credit card has more iTune charges on it than McDonalds has hamburgers. As someone who makes a substantial part of my income off of LEGITIMATE royalties, I teach my kids that stealing is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
go pour some glenlivet over ice, because otherwise your coming off like a boorish old crank.
Sorry, no can do. I've got to keep my head clear because I make MUSIC at work. Not swill.

But hey, I appreciate all your comments!
Old 7th September 2007
  #96
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
We have had crappy, crappy delivery formats around forever.
CD's got pretty good around 1993, but any advancements since then have been largely ignored by the record buying public because they don't care or can tell the difference.
Agreed. Since the loudness wars took over, any advancements in delivery mediums are pretty much moot. But my bat like hearing can still tell an MP3 from a mile away. Even thru earbuds! heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
I would never attempt to suggest an mp3 is a substitute for standing infront of great monitors listening to a mix off of 1/2" but who gets to do that, as a consumer?
I don't really care what any one person listens on other than how it shapes the industry and delivery formats. Now that I care about.


thumbsup
Old 7th September 2007
  #97
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopamine View Post
<< the beauty, texture and art of music in in the sonics, and MP3's pretty much destroy 80% of that. >>

How many listening tests have you done to determine that? Any blind or controlled tests using various bit rates?

To say that mp3's destroy about 80% on the beauty, texture and art in music is absurd.

Maybe you heard some improperly ripped mp3's. I can't understand how you would make that comment otherwise. I have to listen very hard to hear any differences in CD VS a 320 kb mp3.
Dude, I don't need a blind listening test. For me, it's like the difference between McDonalds coffee and Starbucks. I can tell the difference by looking at them even before tasting.

Seriously, if you think we need double blind A/B testing to tell the difference, I'll say it again - your'e in the wrong business.
Old 7th September 2007
  #98
Lives for gear
 
neilio's Avatar
 

[quote=kingofswing;1482600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilio View Post
i only use the aac codec, and IT IS VERY close to cd sound,and also right there with anything radio does to its songs.

the aac codec i use, is used with my own cd's and sound very,very good, for being 1/10th the size as original.
QUOTE]

AAC vs MP3 - has that been done before? please excuse me if it has.

Why? well i think the aac format is less detailed over the mp3 format. It seems a little scooped out in the mids. That is why Apple's itunes is aload of crap imo.

hmmm, i can certainly try some example's and see(hear)...but i am listening to my ipod right now,at work through a decent bookshelf system ,through a tape adapter no less, and i am honestly saying that im not missing anything,my dynamic range is there,my highs are good, my mids seem fine, and the my lows seem perfectly acceptable and with the fidelity i crave.

that brings up something to ponder?

is the best mp3/aac/codec better than cassette tape,especially after a few runs?

i think so, empirically.
Old 7th September 2007
  #99
Gear Head
 
Mr. Quimper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Well.....sorry for the continued ranting, but either you either A.) have very low standards, B.) you have a truly POS system, or C.) I really don't want you working as an engineer for me or any project I'd ever care to listen to....
Given your attitude, I'm happy to say that I wouldn't want to work as an engineer for you anyway.

I was just making a casual comment on how I purchase music and wasn't looking for some arrogant elitist critique of how I choose to listen to my personal music collection.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned with the content of those files, as in the quality of the music and musicians, than spending all of my time worrying about the loss of maybe a few percentiles of frequency content lost in the compression process. And since we're being eletist, I wouldn't care to work on any project you'd care to listen to either since I'm sure your tastes are fairly pedestrian anyway.

Obviously, all those mono Jazz recordings from the '30s, '40s & '50s which make up 40% of my collection are going to sound so terrible as 200kbps mp3s...

...get over yourself and realize that 99.9% of people who allow you to continue working, i.e., the music buying public, really don't give a **** about your rediculously high standards...you're in a service industry, nothing more, and people want the convenience of compressed digital audio, so shut up and deliver the product that is in demand or go home.

fuuck
Old 7th September 2007
  #100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Dude, I don't need a blind listening test. For me, it's like the difference between McDonalds coffee and Starbucks. I can tell the difference by looking at them even before tasting.

Seriously, if you think we need double blind A/B testing to tell the difference, I'll say it again - your'e in the wrong business.
I agree with you Dr there is a pretty obvious difference, but could you please explain exactly what it is about mp3's that you don't like?

Last edited by MarkRB; 7th September 2007 at 04:10 AM.. Reason: me stupid
Old 7th September 2007
  #101
Lives for gear
 
neilio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Nope. Sorry, it's not 8:00PM yet is it? heh



I'm well aware of that, thanks for reminding my feeble old brain. How many people running iPods have even ONE WAV or AIFF files at 44.1 in them? My guess....about .002%. And that's not what this thread was about anyway, it was about WIFI wireless delivery killing off the CD. WIFI deilvery = even lower quality audio. THat is my point.



Great! I'm happy for you. BTW, I don't hold radio up as the audio quality standard to which we should attain.



WRONG. My credit card has more iTune charges on it than McDonalds has hamburgers. As someone who makes a substantial part of my income off of LEGITIMATE royalties, I teach my kids that stealing is wrong.



Sorry, no can do. I've got to keep my head clear because I make MUSIC at work. Not swill.

But hey, I appreciate all your comments!
and i appreciate yours as well, you were coming off as a crank at first,and then admitted it had been a long day,and since have been more convivial.

another question raised, does hand-ripped mp3/???/??? sound better than ones recieved over the "internets"?
Old 7th September 2007
  #102
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=drBill;1482625]Dude, I don't need a blind listening test. For me, it's like the difference between McDonalds coffee and Starbucks. I can tell the difference by looking at them even before tasting.
btw, a survey came out that McDonalds coffee was better than Starbucks by far.
Old 7th September 2007
  #103
Gear Nut
 
lazzaro's Avatar
 

MP3 vs AAC

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofswing View Post

AAC vs MP3 - has that been done before? please excuse me if it has.

Why? well i think the aac format is less detailed over the mp3 format. It seems a little scooped out in the mids. That is why Apple's itune store is aload of crap imo. I am not paying for acc files, give me .wavs not garbage.

See:

MP3' Tech - Mpeg2/4-AAC

Under "how does it work". The "tools" that are added were
designed after observing MP3's limitations in practice -- listening to
why low-bit-rate MP3s sounded bad, and adding tools to make them
better. Many of these have to do with better time/frequency tradeoffs,
to reduce "pre-echos" (sounds like tape print-through, but of course
happens for a different reason!). Other tools, like TNS, give you a way to hide
the quantization noise with more temporal precision -- put the noise under
the snare, as opposed to during the quiet moment right before the snare
sounds.

Like any tools, they are only as good as the encoders that use them.
But from a signal-processing and psychoacoustics sense, the new
tools in AAC are sensible additions ...
Old 7th September 2007
  #104
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Dude, I don't need a blind listening test. For me, it's like the difference between McDonalds coffee and Starbucks. I can tell the difference by looking at them even before tasting.

.
btw, a survey came out that McDonalds coffee was better than Starbucks by far.
Old 7th September 2007
  #105
Lives for gear
 

Clearly people here have different oppinions about prefferable format so there should be
a market for many different formats.

My guess is that this differs between genres of music and age groups as well. It´s all good in the end, as it means that there are more products to sell potentially.

I dont see why some people are complaining about vinyl BTW as if it poses some kind of threat lol. Fact is that some people preffer it.
Old 7th September 2007
  #106
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Clearly people here have different oppinions about prefferable format so there should be
a market for many different formats.
That's happened, mp3's won. (not saying they're great.........just saying)

Last edited by MarkRB; 7th September 2007 at 04:20 AM.. Reason: still stupid
Old 7th September 2007
  #107
Gear Head
 
Mr. Quimper's Avatar
 

...since compressed digital files are so terrible I guess I'll just have to go back to the trusty old wax cylinder...older is always better, after all...
Old 7th September 2007
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
That's happened, mp3's won. (not saying they're great, just saying)
Ok, so you think this is some kind of competition then. I like to have a choice.

Also I wonder if it won in terms of sales.

And, did it win by being the best sounding format?
Old 7th September 2007
  #109
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
I agree with you Dr there is a pretty obvious difference, but could you please explain exactly wht it is about mp3's that you don't like?
It's a continuation of what I found when moving from analog (2" + great console) to digital. Loss in the depth of field (reverb and "space"). Smearing of the phase. Time domain issues with transients. Narrowing of the stereo soundfield. Crunchyness of the high end, while paradoxically having the "air" sucked out of it. Reduction of a round (phatt?) bottom. And more that is "undescribeable" for me to put into words.

(BTW, just for reference, these days I'm on PTHD3, mixing mostly in the box even though I own / use a D&R OrionX with 120 automated inputs. Still love analog, but it's just not a reality for my delivery requirements anymore.)

This is a touchy subject for me. Sorry if I come off elitist. I'm anything but. I use what works. I'm blessed to have a lot of cool desireable gear, but I not one of those guys that says chinese mics are all trash or 1073 clones just don't make the grade.

I'm truly sad to see that there are so many that don't hear the difference. I wonder if all their bravado is to cover up the obvious. I don't think you'll find Al Schmitt or Bruce Swedien or Tchad Blake or George Massenburg or other top engineers saying that they can't hear the difference. Yet there are a lot of "pro's" right here saying it loud and clear.

We are supposed to be "engineers". We don't have a credo like doctors, but if we did, it should be to uphold and enhance audio and protect it as much as possible from formats that deteriorate what we made to begin with.

When we listen to a vintage U47, vs a Wunder C7, vs a Peluso 2247 you will get all kinds of people telling you how much of a HUGE difference there is between them. and yet, I find that difference much more minimal than the difference between a CD track and a download off of iTunes.

As a side note, on a related yet different topic, I recently had to upload a bunch of country tracks into PT for a live show. Most of these tracks were produced in N'ville and were huge hits. I told the producer that we needed to get the original tracks off of CD cause these tracks he downloaded from iTunes weren't going to cut it. Well, he said OK and brought in the CD. Guess what, his assistant DID get the tracks off the CD's not iTunes. I felt like an idiot, but that was a turning point for me in regards to current mastering. The loudness wars have gotten so bad that I have a difficult time listening to music. After spending 50-80 hours a week listening to REAL uncompressed, unlimited and un-MP3'd music, it's just really hard for me to listen to. The difference is like night and day to me. For those who don't really hear real music as it was meant to be heard, maybe the difference is not so obvious, but I truly find that unbelieveable for someone who "makes" music.

So....am I the only one here who feels this way?!?! I don't like feeling like I'm the sole survivor trying to hold off a glacier that's on the move. Anyone else out there??????
Old 7th September 2007
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Ok, so you think this is some kind of competition then. I like to have a choice.
Sorry, no not at all. I'm all for 2" 8-track 7.1 surround mixes but until that time mp3's will have to do.
Old 7th September 2007
  #111
Gear Addict
 
anteupaudio's Avatar
 

Pretty soon, music won't be "bought" at all. We'll all pay a set monthly fee (like we do for a cell phone) and that fee will allow us to listen to any song we want to hear or watch any movie we want to watch whenever we want to.. on demand... It will stream real time to an iPod like device and there will be no need for storage on that device at all. As transfer speeds get faster and faster, they'll be able to send full blown .wav files and mp3's will be a thing of the past as well.. Pretty exciting stuff actually.
Old 7th September 2007
  #112
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Quimper View Post
...since compressed digital files are so terrible I guess I'll just have to go back to the trusty old wax cylinder...older is always better, after all...

You're a genius!!! Let me know if you find a good supplier for wax wouldya?
Old 7th September 2007
  #113
Lives for gear
 

Thanks for the reply Doc.

I don't think many people are saying they can't hear a difference but the point I've been trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that the difference you can hear doesn't ruin the pleasure of the music. That is after all, the be all and end all of why we do this job.
Old 7th September 2007
  #114
Gear Head
 
Mr. Quimper's Avatar
 

In my opinion, extreme dynamics compression is far worse of an epidemic afflicting our enjoyment of music these days than any amount of data compression...

...get the source material sounding good first and then I'll worry about faults in the delivery medium...
Old 7th September 2007
  #115
Gear Head
 
Mr. Quimper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
I don't think many people are saying they can't hear a difference but the point I've been trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that the difference you can hear doesn't ruin the pleasure of the music. That is after all, the be all and end all of why we do this job.
The head of the nail has definitely been hit. thumbsup
Old 7th September 2007
  #116
Lives for gear
 
neilio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
It's a continuation of what I found when moving from analog (2" + great console) to digital. Loss in the depth of field (reverb and "space"). Smearing of the phase. Time domain issues with transients. Narrowing of the stereo soundfield. Crunchyness of the high end, while paradoxically having the "air" sucked out of it. Reduction of a round (phatt?) bottom. And more that is "undescribeable" for me to put into words.

(BTW, just for reference, these days I'm on PTHD3, mixing mostly in the box even though I own / use a D&R OrionX with 120 automated inputs. Still love analog, but it's just not a reality for my delivery requirements anymore.)

This is a touchy subject for me. Sorry if I come off elitist. I'm anything but. I use what works. I'm blessed to have a lot of cool desireable gear, but I not one of those guys that says chinese mics are all trash or 1073 clones just don't make the grade.

I'm truly sad to see that there are so many that don't hear the difference. I wonder if all their bravado is to cover up the obvious. I don't think you'll find Al Schmitt or Bruce Swedien or Tchad Blake or George Massenburg or other top engineers saying that they can't hear the difference. Yet there are a lot of "pro's" right here saying it loud and clear.

We are supposed to be "engineers". We don't have a credo like doctors, but if we did, it should be to uphold and enhance audio and protect it as much as possible from formats that deteriorate what we made to begin with.

When we listen to a vintage U47, vs a Wunder C7, vs a Peluso 2247 you will get all kinds of people telling you how much of a HUGE difference there is between them. and yet, I find that difference much more minimal than the difference between a CD track and a download off of iTunes.

As a side note, on a related yet different topic, I recently had to upload a bunch of country tracks into PT for a live show. Most of these tracks were produced in N'ville and were huge hits. I told the producer that we needed to get the original tracks off of CD cause these tracks he downloaded from iTunes weren't going to cut it. Well, he said OK and brought in the CD. Guess what, his assistant DID get the tracks off the CD's not iTunes. I felt like an idiot, but that was a turning point for me in regards to current mastering. The loudness wars have gotten so bad that I have a difficult time listening to music. After spending 50-80 hours a week listening to REAL uncompressed, unlimited and un-MP3'd music, it's just really hard for me to listen to. The difference is like night and day to me. For those who don't really hear real music as it was meant to be heard, maybe the difference is not so obvious, but I truly find that unbelieveable for someone who "makes" music.

So....am I the only one here who feels this way?!?! I don't like feeling like I'm the sole survivor trying to hold off a glacier that's on the move. Anyone else out there??????
well ive spent my time being intimate with 499,827's, ausperger/tad's tuned by coco himself,etc,etc...and no one is saying mp3/aac is the end all be all...just that its not nearly as bad as its been kicked around for.

again my first choice,at home when and where i truly can enjoy my music, i prefer vinyl....but in a car,or whatever aac is just fine.
Old 7th September 2007
  #117
Gear Head
 
Mr. Quimper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anteupaudio View Post
Pretty soon, music won't be "bought" at all. We'll all pay a set monthly fee (like we do for a cell phone) and that fee will allow us to listen to any song we want to hear
Rhapsody Online
Old 7th September 2007
  #118
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
Thanks for the reply Doc.

I don't think many people are saying they can't hear a difference but the point I've been trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that the difference you can hear doesn't ruin the pleasure of the music. That is after all, the be all and end all of why we do this job.
Well...some people are all about the beat. Hang the melody or the chords, it's about the groove. MP3's don't really hurt that other than messing up the bottom.

Some people live for the guitar solo. I'm sure they're fine with MP3's.

Others are all about the lyric and melody. MP3's don't mess that up either.

Others are about the orchestration or the production and layering of instruments. Here MP3's start to intrude, but for most, the convenience offsets any anomolies.

Others are about the space around instruments, the beauty of an incredible mix, the resonance of an incredibly recorded instrument, the realism of a particular mic/mic pre combo. For those people (of whom I count myself one, and I thought there were more like me around here), for those people MP3's destroy the "beauty" of the music. Pure and simple. I'm not saying I can't enjoy the song, just that the listening pleasure is squashed. Kind of like buying a Lamborgini and not being able to drive it faster than 55mph. That's a bummer, right?

Now, I've got a bachelor of arts degree in composition and love orchestration, I love spacious productions like those the trevor horn did with Seal, or Sting or ??? MP3's just don't make it for me with that kind of music. Orchestral music, forget it. MP3's suck even worse for that. If you're talking about the latest Avril Lavigne recording....well, maybe I couldn't tell the difference. ??? I doubt it, I'm guessing I could, but I probably wouldn't CARE so much. heh heh
Old 7th September 2007
  #119
Lives for gear
 
neilio's Avatar
 

ok ive got a good song converted into four different formats...how can i post these, and should i tell you guys what they or should they be blind?
Old 7th September 2007
  #120
Lives for gear
 

^^

blind.

sidenote to this discussion: although it seems unlikely that the 14 year olds that run the record business give a hoot about any of this...

it would be fantastic if (when average download speeds make the next quantum leap from cable) itunes and other online music download sites offered multiple res formats from 320kpb mp3 all the way up to 24/88.2.

if you have the gigantic HD (and gigantic 600MB ipod or whatever) to accomodate the 24/88.2....then you will have that option.

that would be great...although without really good D/A some of the benefit of the giant files will be lost for sure.

however, as it has been stated, as long as the average album is so crushed in mastering that i can barely stand to listen to more that 2-3 songs in a row on good speakers and D/As.....it all doesn't really matter that much. i find the super crushed stuff painful as either wav OR mp3.

as far as current music purchasing (which i do less and less because of the loudness factor) i stick to CDs....why should i pay for a lower res file if i can just order the CD from amazon, often for a discount?
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
T_R_S / So much gear, so little time
25
BevvyB / So much gear, so little time
0
XHipHop / So much gear, so little time
4
Jens / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump