Discussion in 'Home Audio (Stereo Systems)' started by teleman1, Dec 22, 2017.
Far from it...
I don't have the luxury of sitting and listening to music much these days. Between my job, having to study for a new certification, kids, a house, a dog, and a wife and kids, I barely have time to play guitar. I listen to most of my music at work, some in the car, some walking the dog, and some while cycling. Having time to sit means I should grab a guitar.
What do you fine as "young" people? Children, i.e. under the age of 18? 18-22 year olds? People in their mid-to-late 20s? Up to 35 year olds? Anyone under the age of 54?
Oh you know, them young people who don't appreciate anything, those young people.
None of those formats willingly removed 80%+ of the information that makes up the music today, like horribly compressed (thrown out) mp3s.
There's a gigantic difference between scratchy vinyl, stretched cassettes, and muted 8-track tapes.
Those all TRIED to sound better.
"I've got a gazillion compressed songs on my iPhone!"
Yes, you do.
And every single one of them sounds like absolute **** and is slowly ruining your hearing.
That's untrue on all sorts of levels.
Vinyl albums had bass frequencies suppressed because full representation of the bass would cause the needle to bounce.
Cassettes were not created trying to sound better. Compared to full format reel to reel they clearly sounded worse and were even more fragile. They were created to be convenient, to open a new format of hardware to market and to tap into the potential of bringing self-programmed music into cars on a mass market basis.
8-tracks were also created as an attempt to profit from selling music players in the automotive market and they were even worse than cassettes, often cutting songs in half to accommodate the storage limitations in a single contiguous piece of tape.
Furthermore, while all MP3's are compressed they are not all horribly compressed. In fact, commercially available MP3's (and related lossy files) being sold by the major vendors are actually quite high quality and when they are played back on a quality analog stereo most people, including me, find the quality quite acceptable.
And finally, MP3s and other lossy format files do not cause damage to anyone's hearing. That damage comes from listening through headphones and earbuds at excessive volume levels. The damage will be caused whether one is listening to low res MP3 or a full frequency FLAC or WAV file.
It is possible to buy a high quality portable music player for under $200 (including a 128 GB memory card) that will play all sorts of lossless file formats (as well as high quality MP3's). Play those into a decent analog stereo and they can sound good enough to satisfy most people. For under $100, you can get a portable player with 64GB and coupled with a pair of even reasonable quality noise blocking buds, you can have what I consider to be an excellent listening experience while on the go. All of these options sound better than the albums and tapes that I listened to for several decades.
I'm glad someone who was actually there spoke up.
Isn't there some 'deletion' of info on fake stereo albums? Not on purpose, but as a side effect via comb filtering?
No way a lossy file compares to a lossless .flac .aiff or .wav file.
If the file says 80% compressed, that's the same as a low-res photograph that's pixelating. Once the majority of data is deleted making it larger doesn't improve the image.
And throwing out most of the file size does ruin the music.
Listen to only badly compressed mp3 files for 24 hrs straight.
Your ears will hurt from the experience, even at moderate volumes.
Your ears do not fatigue as easily with lossless files.
It's been said that hearing damage begins after half an hour with an mp3 player and earbuds.
Next time you hear a kid blasting his headphones, he's already done irreversible damage.
But brickwalling and compression from the loudness wars didn't do our ears any favors.
And I heard vinyl albums on audiophile equipment that absolutely sounded better than commercially available mp3s.
Back in the 70s.
And I still maintain that throwing away most of the information doesn't get it back UNLESS it's a .flac file.
There was some outstanding audiophile equipment available in the 70's. It was very expensive then and it's very expensive now. Is that supposed to be the standard listening setup to which we all aspire? If so very few people would be able to afford to listen to music at all and music would become the sole pleasure of the very wealthy.
As for your point about hearing loss, what you are describing is a function of listening at high volume through headphones or buds. It has little or nothing to do with the quality of the files.
I'd say that from what I've heard of the dreck kids listen to today there is no benefit from buying a hi res download.
And they need to get a haircut.
I'd be happy if mastering engineers appreciated high-quality listening.
I'm sure they appreciate it, but it depends what they are getting paid to do.
I would agree with the last part if you had commented on the lack of dynamic range inherent in most MP3 files. That absolutely contributes to hearing loss, especially for those who don't know how to listen at a moderate level.
I went to see some people at a local high end audio shop last Summer and as they were setting up some equipment, they had music playing at a low level. I walked closer to the speakers and as I stood there about 6' away, I could hear everything clearly, as I try to achieve with the systems I install. I asked if many people comment about about being surprised by the detail they hear at such low levels and he paused before saying, "yeah, they do". That's not possible with badly recorded music or inferior equipment. OTOH, while the main purpose is to listen to the music, isn't it a better experience with high sound quality and wide dynamic range?
You're right. It IS a better experience with high sound quality and wide dynamic range. But it costs more than an iPod.
Apple no longer makes iPods.
I hope they do. I'm buying an iPod Touch soon...