smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Jeff" <jeff.teez@comcast.net> |
| Subject | Re: wait a sec - iPod question |
| Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 17:35:28 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Josh and Michael conversed thusly:
--- Josh Chasin <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> You can do this, but you pay a quality price. MP3s at 128k have about
10%
> of the data of a CD quality .wav file. MP3 compression is a "lossy"
format;
> you lose data and fidelity. Burning an MP3 to disc and extracting it
as an
> MP3 adds another quality loss; an MP3 of an MP3 is like a tape of a
tape;
> each generation sounds worse than the one before.
I am a music lover, not an audiophile. I cannot really tell
the difference, nor do I care about it when I am listening
to it on a pair of headphones, while out walking or in my
office.
I understand what you are saying and respect your opinion,
I just don't understand why an MP3 discussion can never be had
without someone bringing up the lossy format argument.
michael
I chime in with approximately 4 cents worth of opinion:
Because mp3's, mostly, sound like sh*t. I really believe this and I'm
sure that I could demonstrate it in a live setting by playing different
tracks for you encoded and compressed (or not) in different ways. I
always want to hear the "full" unadulterated track, they way the artist
and the guy who mastered the record heard it when they decided on the
final version.
I'm sure that every one of you all could very easily tell the difference
between a 128 kbps mp3 (let alone a 96kbps track), a 320 kbps mp3, a
full .cda file from a cd and a new vinyl record, for one example. You
don't in any way need to be an audiophile to easily hear the difference.
I'll gladly encode a song of your choosing in as many lossy and
non-lossy formats as you desire, and I'll e-mail them to you and/or post
them to our yahoo home so everyone can hear the difference. This is just
one of the many reasons why I don't own an iPod. Call me backwards, late
and ugly, I don't care. Lossy files sound THIN *TO ME*. You can use
software with algorithms to "pump" them back up artificially, but it's
still not the same as the original uncompressed file and never will be.
I understand that there are times (in the car, perhaps, while out
jogging or walking, while doing housework, while stuck at a Darkness
concert (cheap shot! <grin>) when you don't need full fidelity, and
mp3's do an adequate job in those situations for most people.
Furthermore, the proof, I honestly do believe, is in the pudding. CD-R's
that I have made from ripped vinyl sound BETTER (primarily "warmer", to
use an already badly overused term oft heard when this subject come up,
but also "wider" and less harsh) than the commercial CD's I've bought of
the same record. As long as I can plainly and easily hear this
difference, I can't see how I could ever enjoy listening to a couple of
hundred mp3's in a row, no matter how they're encoded. It would drive me
nuts. To each his own, for sure. Vanilla and chocolate and different
perceptions and all that, given. I own a portable cd player (iRiver)
that plays CD-R's of mp3's (one disc will hold about 130 tracks) that I
encode at 320 kbps using Variable Bit Rate. I can deal with it while I'm
out for a walk, or stuck in a car (my Mom's usually) that only has a
cassette deck), but otherwise, no lossy formats for me please. I need
the full "warmth of the sun".
All due respect, my friends. I think this is primarily a portability
question most often, and not one of quality. If I could walk around with
a little machine strapped to my arm that plays 5,000 songs in full
fidelity, I'd certainly be an instant buyer. I'm absolutely baffled that
people are going in to clubs and plugging their mp3 players in to the
sound system and people in the club are actually enjoying themselves
listening. You gotta be kidding! Great DJ's still use VINYL for a very
good reason.
jeff teez
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.