Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 91985	2008-07-25 00:00:00	"Neil Young slams iTunes, iPod"	johcar (6283)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
691832	2008-07-25 22:21:00	I agree with him - even though I own an iPod. It's ok - but for real music I prefer vinyl - through an LP12 preferably. Neil Young spoke out when CDs were first introduced too - said that the digital era of music will be looked back on as a dark age in music. I tend to agree. Most of the current generation "Music" is apparently designed to sound better from cassette recordings, preferably without any form of amplification. Just hold the tape to your ear, rap sounds better that way than any other method that may produce local air pressure variations.	R2x1 (4628)
691833	2008-07-25 22:31:00	Most of the current generation "Music" is apparently designed to sound better from cassette recordings, preferably without any form of amplification. Just hold the tape to your ear, rap sounds better that way than any other method that may produce local air pressure variations. I've always wondered about how to listen to (c)rap music. Thanks R2x1 :clap	johcar (6283)
691834	2008-07-25 22:54:00	I've always wondered about how to listen to (c)rap music. Thanks R2x1 :clap The best way is not to listen to it at all. I agree with the fact that any music not on CD or vinyl is not worth the money they charge for it. I don't download music because I want to listen to music on my kickass amp in my lounge	gary67 (56)
691835	2008-07-25 23:14:00	I gave up on all mp3's after investing in a killer amp and speakers, I would never pay for an MP3.	Metla (12)
691836	2008-07-25 23:32:00	Was this the earliest non wind-up portable player? (It was the film that was a wind-up.) "The Running, Jumping and Standing Still Film" (1960), an 11-minute entertainment made on a shoestring and consisting of assorted crazy scenes - including a man rushing into a field to scrub the grass, and another character who places a gramophone record on a tree stump and runs madly around it with the recording arm. (Spike Milligan in there of course):banana :banana	R2x1 (4628)
691837	2008-07-26 00:38:00	Why are "we" talking about 128 or even 256k bitrates here? I save each and every MP3 in at least 1,000K bitrate and I cannot notice any degradation or loss at all . I'm not talking about things from YouTube or streamcast radio . If 128 is NEAR-cd quality . . then what is 1K worth? I then have to cut them down with Audacity to 128 or less for my Sansa, but that's OK as I use earbuds anyway and they aren't the best for reproduction . Sometimes I just plug it into the jack on the front of my CD/MP3/Radio player in the dash as I'm driving . . . so it's no big thang . If I want REAL sound immersion, I just play it on guitar or bass (loudly) myself! Nyuck, nyuck! Saving mp3's at any bitrate above that which they were encoded at will not improve quality in the least . and encoding at anything above 256kbs will also be futile It does not exist any hardware or software allowing to judge quality of a perceptual coding scheme like the MP3 . Some people use a sound signal subtraction to judge, but this method, due to the exploitation of the masking effect during the encoding process, can not be valid (it could however be valid for some comparative test between encoder parameters) . It is therefore necessary to process using listening tests in order to judge quality of the encoding result . The recording used is the 8th track from the album The book of secrets of Loreena McKennitt, distributed by Warner . It was selected due to the very good quality of this recording . The track used includes a part of choruses with some little noises in the hall, a composed part of violin accompanied by piano . A few minutes after the singer's voice is added . My tests are done by 2 listeners (including me) at different compression rates . We both know quite well this recording, and listening are carried the weekend in beginning of afternoom in order to avoid the tiring effect that could have influenced the listening results . The recording has been encoded with the ACM pro codec up to 128kbs, then with mpeg Encoder 0 . 06 . The decoding was done using Winamp 1 . 6 . The samples have then been burned on a TDK CD-R . The listening equipment is the following : * Teac VRDS 25 CD reader * MIT T2 cables * Yamaha AX 1050 amplifier * Denon PMA 960 amplifier (for frequencies <50Hz) * Celestion speakers 96kbs: The sound clearly lacks definition: as an example, hall's noises are perceived as some breath . The result is comparable to a good FM radio . 112kbs: The sound seems less present and less natural than the original . The definition is a bit less good, the voice is less clear . Attacks are less spontaneous . The spatialization is different from the original recording: the sound seems to be located more far and more lower . There is however a very noticeable improvement compared to 96kbs . 128kbs: Hall's noises are slightly less defined than the original . The violin is a bit less present and the piano attacks a bit less sharp . The voice is nearly identical to the original recording but sibilants are less pronounced . We can notice the same spatialization problem as with the 112kbs's one although there is again a good improvement compared to the 112kbs rate . 160kbs: The sound is more natural than 128kbs but the improvement is less spectacular than during the two preceding stages . The sound is different from the original, without however being possible to tell in what . I think that the difference resides more in what we feel rather than in what we hear . 192kbs: The sound is not felt as the original recording . It is however totally impossible to tell in what . 256kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original . It is impossible to make the difference with the original recording . 320kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original . It is impossible to make the difference with the original recording . CD Audio : The sound of the burned CD is strictly identical the manufactured CD . This test, although it could appear useless, is however necessary so in order to insure that it is impossible that the burning step introduces differences, that would have falsified tests . It is clear that the 128kbs rate does not produce a quality equal to a CD on a good quality Hi-Fi installation . We can wonder if Fraunhofer's institute has not made an error by limiting its ACM pro codec to 128kbs . However, in the context of a computer use, the quality is equal to the one obtained by reading an Audio CD on a CD-ROM reader . The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements . The test equipment is indeed better than the majority of Hi-fi installations . Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbs rate produces a quality equal to an audio CD . But in the case of an MP3 use in advanced Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbs bitrate to reach an identical result to the CD sound .	bevy121 (117)
691838	2008-07-26 05:41:00	You'd be better off saving as FLAC or something similar SurferJoe	Chilling_Silence (9)
691839	2008-07-26 06:05:00	You'd be better off saving as FLAC or something similar SurferJoe Interesting thread. Someone may be able to enlighten me on encoding quality. I have an old Sony HiMD player and I ripped all my CD collection at "ATRAC 320kb lossless" format. My music, apart from a dozen or so downloads is all mine and all ripped at the above figure. I know folk go on about ATRAC but apart from the time taken to load the files to the disk, I found this system excellent. To me, this gives a great sound on this player. It would also record full CD quality which gave around 1.5 cd's per disk. I bought a NWZ-A720 8GB player a week or so ago. This uses either AAC, WMA or MP3 for ripping, no lossless types. Except for WMA lossless, which make large files. Has anyone tried this one? I have yet to look at this method, but it would probably be OK to put all my special music on using this encoding. Any comments anyone. Any equivalent encoders in lossless format the anyone knows of? Don't bash me about the ATRAC guys :banana Ken	kenj (9738)
691840	2008-07-26 06:16:00	You'd be better off saving as FLAC or something similar SurferJoe OK...a given there...but howcome nobody's mentioned .wav files? Isn't a .wav supposed to be the digital ultimate? Maybe the 12-inch guns on the ships I was on stifled my audio appreciation. ....not to mention the few years in front of some Crate and Peavey amps playing surf, C/W and roadhouse rock doing something too. What really turns me on is a thumping bass, some really good trebs and little or no midrange at all. SRV comes to mind...and ZZ Top. :punk	SurferJoe46 (51)
691841	2008-07-26 06:31:00	Bevy121: Saving mp3's at any bitrate above that which they were encoded at will not improve quality in the least . and encoding at anything above 256kbs will also be futile Remember that archival ripping is STILL OK in the US . . but I do not condone it in lands/territories that make it a criminal act . Psst--- I am in the US . Don't tell anyone here . . they think I live in the Kermadec Islands, on Macauley (to the South of Raoul Island) When I insert/rip a cd, I use the largest file bitrate I can . . and it comes out at around 1,000kbps . I am not downloading any of them at that rate, and of course, saving something in a high rate when it is actually arriving at a lower rate is gilding a lily . . . . so, NO I don't do that . I actually download very few . wav or MP3 files at all . . . I refuse to pay for ones and zeros . . . er . . with some exceptions of course . XP comes to mind . Some times an really obscure YouTube rendering goes into my hdd via Audacity, but they too are very rare . . . . and YouTube is MONO after all! Does anyone have any idea as to the bitrate of a factory CD?	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2 3