smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Jeff" <jeff.teez@comcast.net> |
| Subject | Re: wait a sec - iPod question |
| Date | Tue, 16 May 2006 09:50:34 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain Windows-1252 (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Stewart replied to my post with the following:
> From: "Jeff" <jeff.teez@comcast.net>
> > 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.
>
> A 60GB iPod using Apple's lossless formatting (very similar to FLAC
> and SHN, both of which are accepted by all but the most doctrinaire
> audio fetishists) will hold well over 3000 three-minute pop songs.
> There's little real difference between 3000 and 5000 songs in
> real-life applications, I've found.
I had no idea that this was possible (good ol' Auditees). I need to do
more research, obviously, and I will. I'll be interested to see the
difference in file sizes created using the different options that I've
yet to learn about or experiment with.
> > 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.
>
> Could be that the people listening actually are in it for the music
> and not the audio quality. (Those fools! What misplaced priorities
> they must have!)
There's the rub, I cannot separate the two.
As for me, if I can listen happily to FM radio --
> and I can -- and watch TV without one of those several-thousand-dollar
> 5.1 audio home theatre setups -- and I can -- then I'm certainly happy
> with 160k mp3s.
I understand. I don't have a 5.1 set up either. I must say though that
the sound of FM radio bugs me (at home or in the car). I rarely listen
to it. It's just tinny and harsh. That was okay back in the 70's when I
was listening primarily in my '75 Camaro on my 6" x 9" Jensens, but it's
not so cool anymore. Now, I drive a BMW with so many speakers I haven't
even located all of them yet <smile>, and I *still* don't like the sound
of radio. It'll do in a pinch, but I would never spend $300.00 to
$400.00 to carry that sound around with me.
For one thing, I'm wearing this thing in the streets
> and subways of Boston: If I were going to listen to it at volumes
> loud enough to distinguish between file sizes over this level of
> ambient noise, I would be as deaf as Townshend in the space of six
> months. And at that point, file quality wouldn't exactly matter much
> anymore, now would it?
No, not at all. I did note that there are situations where mp3's
suffice. And I do listen to them when out walking sometimes. I agree
with you. Again, the trade-off: portability vs. audio quality. Can I
have both? Stewart says I can, so I'll definitely check it out. I'll be
the first to admit it and report back if I find that it works for me.
:-) I swear that I'm not an elitist, a fetishist (!) or an audiophile of
any sort. Since most of my friends are accomplished musicians, audio
engineers and sound guys, I can also say for certain that there's
nothing special at all about my "ears". Simply put, there's just a huge
difference to my ears between ANY mp3 file *that I've heard so far* and
the original source, be it analog or even digital, and that difference
is irritating to me. I'm not even a purist, I just know what I hear. I'm
sure all of you know what you hear as well. I'm probably putting too
fine a point on all of this, but I'm interested in all of your opinions.
Thanks for the info, Stewart!
jeff teez
>
> S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.