MP3, CD or Vinil?

NewOrder · **on:** June 05, 2007, 08:50:28 AM

I'll have to go with vinil, there's nothing like it, the sound just comes out so natural. What about you?

Petrie. · **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2007, 12:57:42 PM

CDs for me. I've got vinyl too and I don't like it because it lacks the clarity with a digital recording. I know the "warmth" thing everyone says about vinyl but its not feasable for me.

Tails_155 · **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2007, 05:30:49 PM

just to split it: MP3, I mainly listen to music on my computer, and i can have 47 hours to (record for me is) 236:20:37 (H:M:S) of music to listen to, without changing discs or any of that, and I can even add the crackle of a record player because I have that loop

action9000 · **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:19:41 PM

Where's DVD audio? Where's blu-ray? Where's HD-DVD? That's the good stuff!

:

Quote

I'll have to go with vinil, there's nothing like it, the sound just comes out so natural. What about you?

This may surprise you but I am going to have to say CDs. I find vinyl has too many artifacts (you know, the typial hiss/pop/crackle and whatnot) which get in the way of the natural clear sound. I like DVD audio because the sampling rate is better than CDs, which helps eliminate the harsh Digitalness of the audio. I'm really looking forward to Blu-ray or HD-DVD to deal with this even further. Blu-Ray audio tracks are at 96kHz sampling rate and lossless (Dolby TrueHD). That's twice the sampling rate of DVDs which should help kill the harsh digital sound. I've never actually heard a Blu-ray movie so I can't say for sure.

But to answer your question. I will buy CDs. I will NOT buy vinyls (no means to play them and no real need for it). I will NOT buy MP3s (most mp3s you buy are only 192 kb/s. Even 320 kb/s isn't as good as a CD). I tend to buy CDs and rip them as either lossless WMA or as 192 or 320 kb/s MP3s, depending on the CD and where I plan to use the music. If space is an issue I'll use 192 or less. If it's not an issue (it will stay primarily on my main computer) I'll use 320 or lossless.

I'm a fan of the *really* high sampling rates; too bad it's so expensive still for a blu-ray player and almost none of my favorite music is on DVD audio

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:26:11 PM

Quote

I've never actually heard a Blu-ray movie so I can't say for sure.

Just go to best buy or another electronics store. Blu-ray is awesome! The sound was so good. Picture quality makes dvd's look like vhs movies. Too bad the cheapest player I could find cost $800.

action9000 · **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:27:25 PM

Quote

Too bad the cheapest player I could find cost $800.

The cheapest blu-ray player I found is a PS3.

: at $599 or so, it's significantly cheaper than a Blu-ray player. I don't have one though.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:51:44 PM

Quote

The cheapest blu-ray player I found is a PS3. at $599 or so, it's significantly cheaper than a Blu-ray player. I don't have one though.

Yeah but are you talking Canadian money? I'm talking U.S. dollars.

action9000 · **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2007, 08:56:32 PM

Quote

Yeah but are you talking Canadian money? I'm talking U.S. dollars.

The Canadian dollar is worth over $.94 USD right now. They're very close. And yes, that is $599 Canadian.

Petrie. · **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2007, 09:15:17 PM

Ohh...don't buy into that 96khz sampling rate crap. You'd have to be a bat to notice if there was anything recorded that high that equaled musical sound produced by instruments and not white noise.

: You'll never need more than CD quality to reproduce what can be heard with musical instruments.

To tails, the only time I consider mp3 files (or any lossy alternative) is when I know it will be next to impossible to get a cd copy (just about anything on emusic.com) and I really don't want to waste a ton of time trying to hear any sort of artifacting.

action9000 · **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2007, 12:52:09 AM

Quote

Ohh...don't buy into that 96khz sampling rate crap. You'd have to be a bat to notice if there was anything recorded that high that equaled musical sound produced by instruments and not white noise. You'll never need more than CD quality to reproduce what can be heard with musical instruments.

It's not about the high frequencies so much; it's about accuracy of frequency reproduction. The more samples per second exist, the more accurately the source material is captured.

Like I said above, I haven't had much exposure to 96 kHz. According to my training in physics and sampling, 96 kHz should theoretically produce a much more accurate digital conversion of the original source than 44.1kHz.

Petrie. · **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2007, 10:50:29 AM

Hey Tim, try this page. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html You might want to see if your hearing even allows you to be sensitive at such high frequencies. Unless you can drastically improve the sounds between 90hz-4khz for me with something better than a cd, I will never hear a difference in quality.

action9000 · **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2007, 02:16:51 PM

Interesting test, Petrie! Here were my results (according to my Sony headphones anyway):

Looks like I get a pretty sharp cutoff around 15-16 kHz.

Petrie. · **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2007, 02:56:04 PM

Talk about whacko.

That's probably why I have a hard time telling the difference between an original flac and a first transcoded LAME mp3 file at -V6.

:

Tails_155 · **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2007, 08:33:18 PM

(my ratings were pretty good, too lazy to upload)

sir... about 320 and CD quality... according to Sony Acid (debate as you will) 128 qualifies as CD quality, and 64 is FM quality...

most of my better ratings were in the higher frequencies, and I have no real problems until about 72 KBPS

Petrie. · **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2007, 10:47:18 PM

Heh heh, Listen to any sort of instrumental music with lots of strings, cymbals, or any type of accoustic instrument playing at once, and you'll see 128kbps won't cut the mustard. Pop music where there's few dynamics and much of the sounds repeat, maybe then with a newer codec (ogg vorbis, aac, or even wma) but not mp3 for sure. Nothing at 64kbps is even close to FM quality....128kbps is my FM quality.

Granted, have you tested all this yourself, and with what type of music and what type of speakers/headphones? You can get away with the 128kbps stuff on portable players if you're using them in noisy environments (streets, cars, exercising, etc.), but not for anything when you're in a reasonably quiet place..

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #15 on:** June 07, 2007, 02:56:38 PM

Quote

Too bad the cheapest player I could find cost $800.

We'll looks like I was wrong:

Sorry it's so bad. Took it with my cell phone.

Tails_155 · **Reply #16 on:** June 07, 2007, 05:04:46 PM

Quote from: Petrie,Jun 6 2007 on 09:47 PM

Heh heh, Listen to any sort of instrumental music with lots of strings, cymbals, or any type of accoustic instrument playing at once, and you'll see 128kbps won't cut the mustard. Pop music where there's few dynamics and much of the sounds repeat, maybe then with a newer codec (ogg vorbis, aac, or even wma) but not mp3 for sure. Nothing at 64kbps is even close to FM quality....128kbps is my FM quality.

Granted, have you tested all this yourself, and with what type of music and what type of speakers/headphones? You can get away with the 128kbps stuff on portable players if you're using them in noisy environments (streets, cars, exercising, etc.), but not for anything when you're in a reasonably quiet place..

I hate debating but I really have a stand on these kinds of things

The music I listen to includes almost no pop, now, keep in mind, I may notice a difference, and just since I enjoy the song as is, don't register it since it doesn't bother me, if I'm making a remix, regardless of whether I mind or not, I try to get the best sample I can, and I save it with as little loss as I can, but I have very nice stereo speakers that hook up to my computer with a USB, and I'm just not bothered by anything above probably 96, but below that I have problems usually...

I listen mainly to Linkin Park and have since probably 2002, their earlier stuff doesn't amount as much in this way, but in later music (2003-) they've hired orchestrae, they've had multiple layers to music, and some things they do on their CDs they can't do live because it's just too expensive... and I don't have a problem listening to 128 compared to 320, and as a drummer I listen to every part of the music, because the bass and drum are the last sections that you usually listen to for the most part... it's just how we are I guess, I've never felt like I am 'missing' anything really on lower qualities, however, on live tracks, I can't stand anything but a soundboard recording unless I have no choice, because audience members have the tendency to sing off-key, and the audience recordings are not usually done well...

Petrie. · **Reply #17 on:** June 07, 2007, 06:37:02 PM

Ok well, as a drummer, how do those cymbals sound at anything below 192kbps in mp3 or wma or aac?

I don't know if you have it, but probably one the best things you can listen to is that huge creschendo at the very end of the Land Before Time End Credits on the orignal soundtrack (track #7). About the only encoder that probably can pull it off at 128kbps is vorbis.

Do note, I don't try to listen to say "ooh you made that with Windows Media" or all that every time you turn around and send me a sound file. Its no fun if you can pick out artifacts because then you're not listening to the music, so I don't try, but I'm just saying don't accept stuff that's too low because when you get really good equipment to play it back on, you don't want to realize too late what mistake you made.

action9000 · **Reply #18 on:** June 07, 2007, 10:44:13 PM

Quote

We'll looks like I was wrong:

Heh, don't worry. Whether it's $500 or $800, I won't be buying one anytime soon anyway