320kbps
- Thread starter JoelSim
- Start date
Yup...
I've tried and failed a number of times with MP3 and downloads etc...
You just cant beat CD's and/or Vinyl if you have that luxury. More so Joel if you've got/had a CD192!!!
That's like having a BMW M-Series but running it on a 1.2 3 cylinder engine!
I've tried and failed a number of times with MP3 and downloads etc...
You just cant beat CD's and/or Vinyl if you have that luxury. More so Joel if you've got/had a CD192!!!
That's like having a BMW M-Series but running it on a 1.2 3 cylinder engine!
I think it all down to the software that turn PCM to mp3, the 320kbs is not that far behide at all if done properly.
chebby
Well-known member
There is more to this technology than just sitting there measuring a compressed MP3 format (or even lossless) against the CD for outright quality.
Why not actually have a bit of fun with it and explore the choice and convenience it offers?
CD players are all very well (at least now I finally have one I can live with), but if it all comes down to just sitting there 'picking at the scabs' of CD vs this and CD vs that, then I honestly would not bother if I were you.
Take radio for instance. I have returned to having an FM tuner - which sounds gorgeous - but I am still using BBC iPlayer for all the stuff I missed (very little of it music actually) or internet radio for an insane level of choice and variety of stuff impossible to get on CD or FM (or even vinyl).
Even youtube. I am still working my way through over 250 broadcasts of stuff - some of which I have not seen or heard since childhood - that will never make it onto CD or DVD and much of it has decent enough sound quality to justify use of a good quality DAC and the hifi to make it even more enjoyable.
There is a plethora of great stuff out there and my biggest concern is NOT 'navel picking' over the differences in relative sound qualities (compared to CD) but whether I will ever have time to watch and listen to everything!
I have vinyl and CD (and now FM again) for when I want a good dose of 'premium' quality listening but it is not the 'be-all-and-end-all'.
This is why something like the naimuniti (for instance) is such a genius idea. It encourages flexibility and choice (FM, CD, Vinyl, digital streaming, internet radio, DAB, plugging in the DVD/Blu-ray player and even integrating into a full blown multichannel AV set-up if required.)
The designers did not include a CD player just so the customers could use it to compare with MP3 or AAC or lossless downloads of stuff they already have on their shelves, they included it as another choice or 'channel' if you will.
Why not actually have a bit of fun with it and explore the choice and convenience it offers?
CD players are all very well (at least now I finally have one I can live with), but if it all comes down to just sitting there 'picking at the scabs' of CD vs this and CD vs that, then I honestly would not bother if I were you.
Take radio for instance. I have returned to having an FM tuner - which sounds gorgeous - but I am still using BBC iPlayer for all the stuff I missed (very little of it music actually) or internet radio for an insane level of choice and variety of stuff impossible to get on CD or FM (or even vinyl).
Even youtube. I am still working my way through over 250 broadcasts of stuff - some of which I have not seen or heard since childhood - that will never make it onto CD or DVD and much of it has decent enough sound quality to justify use of a good quality DAC and the hifi to make it even more enjoyable.
There is a plethora of great stuff out there and my biggest concern is NOT 'navel picking' over the differences in relative sound qualities (compared to CD) but whether I will ever have time to watch and listen to everything!
I have vinyl and CD (and now FM again) for when I want a good dose of 'premium' quality listening but it is not the 'be-all-and-end-all'.
This is why something like the naimuniti (for instance) is such a genius idea. It encourages flexibility and choice (FM, CD, Vinyl, digital streaming, internet radio, DAB, plugging in the DVD/Blu-ray player and even integrating into a full blown multichannel AV set-up if required.)
The designers did not include a CD player just so the customers could use it to compare with MP3 or AAC or lossless downloads of stuff they already have on their shelves, they included it as another choice or 'channel' if you will.
I agree, you can't beat the ease of access and clarity of Lossless archiving.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
chebby
Well-known member
I will take the liberty of quoting Matthew from another thread because it applies here too and I totally agree with him......
matthewpiano:Recording quality shouldn't get in the way. If it is, you are only really focusing on the hi-fi and being selective about music based on how good it makes the hi-fi sound. I love top notch sound quality and it massively enhances musical enjoyment, but good music remains good music however badly it is recorded.
Substitute "Bit-rate" for "Recording quality" and it still applies.
If the only source of something you want to listen to happens to be a 128k internet radio station or something from BBC iPlayer, then why let it's 'less than CD' bit-rate get in the way?
Would the use of black & film, a 4:3 aspect ratio, and a low tech soundtrack stop you watching and enjoying an old classic movie?
matthewpiano:Recording quality shouldn't get in the way. If it is, you are only really focusing on the hi-fi and being selective about music based on how good it makes the hi-fi sound. I love top notch sound quality and it massively enhances musical enjoyment, but good music remains good music however badly it is recorded.
Substitute "Bit-rate" for "Recording quality" and it still applies.
If the only source of something you want to listen to happens to be a 128k internet radio station or something from BBC iPlayer, then why let it's 'less than CD' bit-rate get in the way?
Would the use of black & film, a 4:3 aspect ratio, and a low tech soundtrack stop you watching and enjoying an old classic movie?
Whenever i have downloaded anything in 320 kbs it seems flat compared to a lossless file definitely.
Can't tell the difference myself between 320 & lossless! I normally use lossless anyway though (depending on the music).
I use iTunes 8 and I really think it needs a BIG overhaul. Even with smart playlists and the various browse/view options I find it very hard to properly browse (as you can with CDs), as I have well over one thousand albums to search through.
Needs many more customizable options, simplify and go 3D too. Anyway, a bit random but there you have it!
I use iTunes 8 and I really think it needs a BIG overhaul. Even with smart playlists and the various browse/view options I find it very hard to properly browse (as you can with CDs), as I have well over one thousand albums to search through.
Needs many more customizable options, simplify and go 3D too. Anyway, a bit random but there you have it!
Willie Cocker:
I agree, you can't beat the ease of access and clarity of Lossless archiving.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
If you're using mp3 for compression, there's your problem!
320kbps mp3 file is equivalent to a 256kbps AAC file.
Use AAC or another format, mp3 is THE worst you can use.
I agree, you can't beat the ease of access and clarity of Lossless archiving.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
If you're using mp3 for compression, there's your problem!
320kbps mp3 file is equivalent to a 256kbps AAC file.
Use AAC or another format, mp3 is THE worst you can use.
Alec
Well-known member
Pmaninit: mp3 is THE worst you can use.
you just said you couldnt tell the differnce between 320 and lossless. did you mean 320 aac?
Thaiman:I think it all down to the software that turn PCM to mp3, the 320kbs is not that far behide at all if done properly.
you just said you couldnt tell the differnce between 320 and lossless. did you mean 320 aac?
Thaiman:I think it all down to the software that turn PCM to mp3, the 320kbs is not that far behide at all if done properly.
Yes I meant AAC, with mp3 you tend to get that 'sizzle', especially at lower bitrates, this doesn't seem to occur with AAC, even at 128.
Great format to use.
I have been using it a lot as I want all my tunes on my laptop so I can play wirelessly anywhere through my HiFi. And use other HDs for films and backups.
My laptop has 200GB, but I only have 7.5 left! :/
EDIT: I use Toast Titanium to convert audio files rather than iTunes. It does a great job and has many more options to get the best from lossless when compressing.
Great format to use.
I have been using it a lot as I want all my tunes on my laptop so I can play wirelessly anywhere through my HiFi. And use other HDs for films and backups.
My laptop has 200GB, but I only have 7.5 left! :/
EDIT: I use Toast Titanium to convert audio files rather than iTunes. It does a great job and has many more options to get the best from lossless when compressing.
Id have to agree, mp3 sounds awful on my hifi. Its annoying as here's this format my cd player can use but the quality is dreadful. Mp3 is nothing more than a handy "test" format to me - if i like an album in mp3 then i will end up buying it on cd. Ive tried countless software to encode mp3 and i get the same results. If anyone has had better success or knows of any tips on creating better mp3s then please help !
The_Lhc
Well-known member
chebby: Would the use of black & film, a 4:3 aspect ratio, and a low tech soundtrack stop you watching and enjoying an old classic movie?
STRAWMAN!
This doesn't apply because the old classic movie was shot in black and white, with a 4:3 ratio and a mono soundtrack. So you have no other choice and you ARE watching it at the best available quality. The correct argument would be if you were to ask if people would be happy to watch a NEW movie that had been converted to black and white, in a 4:3 ratio with a mono soundtrack.
I think most people would answer no, although watching films on mobile phones is probably a similar experience. I'm never quite sure just how many people actually do that though.
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
STRAWMAN!
This doesn't apply because the old classic movie was shot in black and white, with a 4:3 ratio and a mono soundtrack. So you have no other choice and you ARE watching it at the best available quality. The correct argument would be if you were to ask if people would be happy to watch a NEW movie that had been converted to black and white, in a 4:3 ratio with a mono soundtrack.
I think most people would answer no, although watching films on mobile phones is probably a similar experience. I'm never quite sure just how many people actually do that though.
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
Pmaninit: mp3 is THE worst you can use.
Forgetting .rm are we?
Seriously though, if you're using .mp3 (as opposed to lossless) try using a better ripper (such as WInamp 5 Pro). there are many encoding options for 320kbps .mp3 that I swear rubbish like iTunes don't use. Stick it on CBR, 320kbps and "Vhigh" quality and the sound you get will be passable and of a reasonable file size. Personally I've moved away from compressed formats as they just sound lifeless and wholey lacking in low end detail when compared to lossless formats.
Before I moved off compression I did come to the conclusion that .mp3 seemed warmer than AAC but AAC on low frequencies always seemed a little... splatty....
Forgetting .rm are we?
Seriously though, if you're using .mp3 (as opposed to lossless) try using a better ripper (such as WInamp 5 Pro). there are many encoding options for 320kbps .mp3 that I swear rubbish like iTunes don't use. Stick it on CBR, 320kbps and "Vhigh" quality and the sound you get will be passable and of a reasonable file size. Personally I've moved away from compressed formats as they just sound lifeless and wholey lacking in low end detail when compared to lossless formats.
Before I moved off compression I did come to the conclusion that .mp3 seemed warmer than AAC but AAC on low frequencies always seemed a little... splatty....
Pmaninit:Willie Cocker:
I agree, you can't beat the ease of access and clarity of Lossless archiving.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
If you're using mp3 for compression, there's your problem!
320kbps mp3 file is equivalent to a 256kbps AAC file.
Use AAC or another format, mp3 is THE worst you can use.
I don't like any compression at all mate.
My system heightens their flaws, including the magical AAC lol.
I'm not a mp3 Noob.
I agree, you can't beat the ease of access and clarity of Lossless archiving.
You can still listen to the tracks with the ease of mp3 access, and if you have decent amp/floorstanders, you will notice the difference in quality.
Running my FLAC's from my Asus Xonar D2 over optical digital to the 2310, the sound is just excellent.
Even Mp3 @ 320 lacks punch and clarity.
1TB hard drives are so cheap nowadays, it's a no-brainer.
If you're using mp3 for compression, there's your problem!
320kbps mp3 file is equivalent to a 256kbps AAC file.
Use AAC or another format, mp3 is THE worst you can use.
I don't like any compression at all mate.
My system heightens their flaws, including the magical AAC lol.
I'm not a mp3 Noob.
idc
Well-known member
I agree that mearly measuring bit rates misses out other factors. The means of compression is important too. MP3 tends to come last in comparison tests that you can find easily on the internet. Also, the hardwear is important too. MP3 on one setup could well sound far better than on another.
Thanks all for a helpful thread. I'm researching (euphamism for saving up for
) my first hi-fi system. I'm definitely looking at the budget end of the spectrum- ie equivalent of £350 each on source, amp, speakers and accessories.
For convenience, space efficiency, access to internet radio and 2-room operability I'm looking at a Sonos (2xZP120s which are amplified), 1TB Hard Disk (which presumably means ripping my CDs in lossless) and 1x decent budget speakers. I'm guessing this will be superior to my current Aiwa cd/mini system.
So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level? I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.
For convenience, space efficiency, access to internet radio and 2-room operability I'm looking at a Sonos (2xZP120s which are amplified), 1TB Hard Disk (which presumably means ripping my CDs in lossless) and 1x decent budget speakers. I'm guessing this will be superior to my current Aiwa cd/mini system.
So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level? I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.
JamesPianoman:
So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level? I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.
There is no technical difference between Lossless and the CD.
Easy way of understanding how it works is taking a CD, puttting it inside a zip file and decompressing it on the fly.
So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level? I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.
There is no technical difference between Lossless and the CD.
Easy way of understanding how it works is taking a CD, puttting it inside a zip file and decompressing it on the fly.
8009514
Well-known member
I don't think there's much doubt that you can't beat the cd for quality with digitised music. But I sometimes get in a bit of a quandary when using a memory stick for music files. The limitations for my system are 320kbps MP3, or 192kbps WMA when using the stick into the usb port. Though the 320 mp3 file is significantly larger than the same track in 192 wma format, one would think the mp3 should sound better. However, I often find the wma file sounds much better IMHO. So not always a clear cut decision which to use.
chebby
Well-known member
the_lhc:
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.
How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed? Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique. BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.
How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.) Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!
Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD? Well it seems you can't because youtube sound quality is not up to CD standards. So let's ignore it.
Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.
I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.
My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.
When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.
This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.
How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed? Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique. BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.
How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.) Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!
Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD? Well it seems you can't because youtube sound quality is not up to CD standards. So let's ignore it.
Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.
I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.
My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.
When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.
This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
The hi-fi/technology is there to service the music, NOT the other way round.
I completely agree with Chebby on this. Of course we all want the best possible sound quality for everything we listen to but the fact that some things are only available in lower quality sound should not be a barrier that stops us from listening to them.
If that was the case I'd be missing out on some wonderful singing transferred to CD from 78s, for example. Even with the excellent work of Ward Marston (amongst others), those 1900-1920 recordings by singers like McCormack, Caruso and Gigli are never going to give us top quality sound. What they do, though, is give us a window into some of the most artistic singers and most beautiful voices of all time. I wouldn't be without them for anything in the world.
As another example, one of my favourite bands is BJH. Some of the footage that was released on VHS of BJH, for example, has never made it to DVD but is available on YouTube. The quality isn't great but that doesn't matter. Its the only form in which the content is currently available and I'd rather work through the less than ideal sound than miss out on having access to those performances.
I read requests from people wanting music recommendations who state that it must be available in a superb quality recording, and I just don't understand it. What if its superb quality music that is only available in a fairly ropey file format or recording?
In my home hi-fi is always secondary to the music and always will be.
I completely agree with Chebby on this. Of course we all want the best possible sound quality for everything we listen to but the fact that some things are only available in lower quality sound should not be a barrier that stops us from listening to them.
If that was the case I'd be missing out on some wonderful singing transferred to CD from 78s, for example. Even with the excellent work of Ward Marston (amongst others), those 1900-1920 recordings by singers like McCormack, Caruso and Gigli are never going to give us top quality sound. What they do, though, is give us a window into some of the most artistic singers and most beautiful voices of all time. I wouldn't be without them for anything in the world.
As another example, one of my favourite bands is BJH. Some of the footage that was released on VHS of BJH, for example, has never made it to DVD but is available on YouTube. The quality isn't great but that doesn't matter. Its the only form in which the content is currently available and I'd rather work through the less than ideal sound than miss out on having access to those performances.
I read requests from people wanting music recommendations who state that it must be available in a superb quality recording, and I just don't understand it. What if its superb quality music that is only available in a fairly ropey file format or recording?
In my home hi-fi is always secondary to the music and always will be.
The best sound I've ever heard today comes from either SACD/DVD-A or a really well mastered BluRay soundtrack. What upsets me is how some CDs can sound worse than the same song on a plain old DVD. Case in point (don't shoot me for this I know it's cheesy) Stardust - Take That song. The album version sound closed in and like it's dynamic range has been sat on, whereas on the DVD it really rings out spacious and clear.
I pluged in my iPod over analogues and nearly died at how rubbish it sounded through my setup below, but using a memory stick and streaming digitally into the amp, the same song sound ok. I wouldn't mind getting some definitive advice as to what to use to rip with. I've been using iTunes for 256kbps AAC and sometimes 320kbps AAC. I thought this would be the best balance between file size and sound quality. Now all I wish is that I could buy everything again on SACD.
I pluged in my iPod over analogues and nearly died at how rubbish it sounded through my setup below, but using a memory stick and streaming digitally into the amp, the same song sound ok. I wouldn't mind getting some definitive advice as to what to use to rip with. I've been using iTunes for 256kbps AAC and sometimes 320kbps AAC. I thought this would be the best balance between file size and sound quality. Now all I wish is that I could buy everything again on SACD.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
chebby:the_lhc:
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.
I did, they aren't relevant to me.
How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed?
I'm not, I only listen to the radio in the car and that's mostly Radio 4 or 5.
Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique. BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.
I don't listen to iPlayer, simple as that, it's just not in a format that I find convenient, I don't want to watch TV or listen to the radio on my PC. If there is something I want to listen to on the radio at home (VERY rare), I'll listen to it via my Sky box into my amp, I also have the option of recording it there as well.
How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.) Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!
Again, that's a strawman argument, no 20's recording on 78 (or any other format) is going to compare in terms of sound quality to something recorded on modern equipment, so it's the same as watching the old film, you accept that there are limits on the quality placed there by the period it was recorded in. In that case the bit-rate isn't as important, as long as it's good enough to convey what was on the original recording that's all that matters.
Having said that I do have a hard time listening to recordings of Caruso though, because he's supposed to be the greatest tenor ever but the recordings of the day completely fail to capture that (IMO), so I find it a disapointing experience.
Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD?
Errr, no, I don't, I never have and I can't see I ever will, not because of the quality, but simply because I just don't see where I'm going to have the time to do that, working 40 hours a week, commuting for another 20, by the time I get home from work I eat, spend maybe an hour with the missus and then off to bed again. The weekends are taken up trying to catch up with all the stuff I should have done during the week but never seem to have time to now. If I do get time to sit down and listen to music (for maybe an hour, tops), you'll have to forgive me if I choose to listen to it at the best quality available to me.
That's my point, it's not that I WON'T listen to lower bit-rates/quality, it's just that I don't see the point in doing so if I've got the option to listen to something at a better standard. Whereas you appear to give the impression (might be wrong here) that you're happy to listen to anything at any quality regardless of if you have other, better, options. That's what I don't get.
Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.
Again, I can't think of any point where this has happened. It might well have done, but clearly the lack of track hasn't bothered me enough to actually do anything about it, so it couldn't have been that important, because I've forgotten about it now.
I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.
My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.
When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.
You seem to imply there that CBM doesn't offer "premium quality"? I'd beg to differ, my CDs are ripped in FLAC and streamed via Sonos, I find the quality so good that I don't even have a CD player anymore, I can't see what benefit it would offer me. Equally, I can't see why I'd want to rip in a lossy format, when I can rip in a lossless one.
This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.
Glad we agree on something, I'll stick with my CD-sourced FLAC files and my vinyl, I find they do me very nicely, I just don't have a requirement to listen to anything else, which I think is where we differ.
I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.
I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.
I did, they aren't relevant to me.
How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed?
I'm not, I only listen to the radio in the car and that's mostly Radio 4 or 5.
Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique. BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.
I don't listen to iPlayer, simple as that, it's just not in a format that I find convenient, I don't want to watch TV or listen to the radio on my PC. If there is something I want to listen to on the radio at home (VERY rare), I'll listen to it via my Sky box into my amp, I also have the option of recording it there as well.
How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.) Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!
Again, that's a strawman argument, no 20's recording on 78 (or any other format) is going to compare in terms of sound quality to something recorded on modern equipment, so it's the same as watching the old film, you accept that there are limits on the quality placed there by the period it was recorded in. In that case the bit-rate isn't as important, as long as it's good enough to convey what was on the original recording that's all that matters.
Having said that I do have a hard time listening to recordings of Caruso though, because he's supposed to be the greatest tenor ever but the recordings of the day completely fail to capture that (IMO), so I find it a disapointing experience.
Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD?
Errr, no, I don't, I never have and I can't see I ever will, not because of the quality, but simply because I just don't see where I'm going to have the time to do that, working 40 hours a week, commuting for another 20, by the time I get home from work I eat, spend maybe an hour with the missus and then off to bed again. The weekends are taken up trying to catch up with all the stuff I should have done during the week but never seem to have time to now. If I do get time to sit down and listen to music (for maybe an hour, tops), you'll have to forgive me if I choose to listen to it at the best quality available to me.
That's my point, it's not that I WON'T listen to lower bit-rates/quality, it's just that I don't see the point in doing so if I've got the option to listen to something at a better standard. Whereas you appear to give the impression (might be wrong here) that you're happy to listen to anything at any quality regardless of if you have other, better, options. That's what I don't get.
Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.
Again, I can't think of any point where this has happened. It might well have done, but clearly the lack of track hasn't bothered me enough to actually do anything about it, so it couldn't have been that important, because I've forgotten about it now.
I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.
My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.
When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.
You seem to imply there that CBM doesn't offer "premium quality"? I'd beg to differ, my CDs are ripped in FLAC and streamed via Sonos, I find the quality so good that I don't even have a CD player anymore, I can't see what benefit it would offer me. Equally, I can't see why I'd want to rip in a lossy format, when I can rip in a lossless one.
This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.
Glad we agree on something, I'll stick with my CD-sourced FLAC files and my vinyl, I find they do me very nicely, I just don't have a requirement to listen to anything else, which I think is where we differ.
chebby
Well-known member
It is obvious from what you say that you (literally) don't have much time for music, whereas I work from home so have the system on up to 15 hours a day.
The TV only goes on around 9pm most days for an hour or two, or for a DVD. (It would be impossible to work with television on during the day and daytime TV is pants anyway.)
We are diametrically opposed even on the subject of radio. If forced to a choice I would throw out the TV and DVD (and even the CD player) if it meant I could keep a radio and yet I cannot enjoy radio in a car.
The TV only goes on around 9pm most days for an hour or two, or for a DVD. (It would be impossible to work with television on during the day and daytime TV is pants anyway.)
We are diametrically opposed even on the subject of radio. If forced to a choice I would throw out the TV and DVD (and even the CD player) if it meant I could keep a radio and yet I cannot enjoy radio in a car.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram