I Just Hate That MP3 Sound Quality....

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:19 pm

Some people are audiophiles and some are not. With the internet making distribution easier then ever it is no wonder that the quantity is exceeding the quality but, if you look at the latest NIN releases on the net it is obvious some people understand the difference, hence the availability of tracks in different formats.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:21 pm

xzusa8ky wrote:Thanks Machinate!

Five Stars for you *****

Ps: Du er jo også dansker!

hehe, np - hvad med dig, er du også dansk? Det er da utroligt så mange vi er!

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:50 pm

Ja jeg er også dansker

Bor i Østrig......

Noel · Post by **Noel** » Mon May 12, 2008 7:13 pm

Angstrom wrote: ...They couldn't hear 128kbps nastiness, didn't care about it and acted like I was describing a mythical martian moon mist for all the impact it had on their lives.

Wise people indeed !

Angstrom wrote: These are the people who will hapilly pay 99c for a 128 kbps mp3 and play it on a cheapo 3 inch speaker iPod accesory

OK, not so wise after all!

Meef Chaloin wrote:a good song is always a good song whether its at 128kbps mp3, 24 bit wav or just a scratchy old record recorded in 1920

Absolutely Agree, I was messing around with an old short wave radio the other day and came accross a distant station that was playing some beutiful classical music. All the noise and fading seemed to have the effect of focusing the mind more on the actual music. The audio equivalent of the saying "Distance lends enchantment to the view".

Generally speaking I go for "Good Enough" sound quality. Sometimes I get envious of other peoples amazing hi-fi systems, but then they start saying things like "Listen to this, you can hear the vocalist's watch ticking", or some such nonsence an I realise they aren't actualy listening to the music at all!

sarrass · Post by **sarrass** » Mon May 12, 2008 8:30 pm

some people don't realize there's a huge difference between apple's aac (on the store) and mp3...

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Mon May 12, 2008 9:34 pm

hi Sarras...What do you mean?

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon May 12, 2008 9:48 pm

To the guys (or girls, I wouldn't know) saying it's all about sound quality I beg to differ

just like someone made a reference to Raggae, Baltimore Club is horribly produced. Horribly produced on vinyl on top of that. But it's the raw dirtiness plus the fact the tracks are illegal as hell that give them their energy.

I'm personally not as anal as some of you when it comes to what my music sounds like. If it's a jam and everything fits, so be it.

as a dj I am probably more anal than most of you. I wont play any kind of techno music unless it's .wav or 320 mp3 - I usually throw everything away that gets sent to me that's less than 320 or not .wav

but I don't go around hating to hate - I just prefer my techno and house to be as high quality as possible

if I'm spinning hipster shit, hipsters don't care. Jacked on hipster drugs why would you

adventurepants_ · Post by **adventurepants_** » Mon May 12, 2008 10:20 pm

most people arent even aware of sound quality. you go round to their house and wonder why their stereo sounds like ass. then you see theyve got multiple DSP and Bass boost options on it that completely fuck the choices of the mix engineer.

i make it my mission to turn them all off behind their back. even cheapie stereos these days can sound great with all the bullshit turned off.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:49 am

Good sound quality upstream will make a better quality mp3 in the end

Lo-Key Fu · Post by **Lo-Key Fu** » Tue May 13, 2008 4:55 am

I wholeheartedly agree that trash-quality MP3s were sent to torture, test and torment us; but generalising the format based on its worst exponent is a recipe for missed opportunity.

To say MP3 has a "bad sound" is a fair enough opinion, but can you honestly hear the difference between a 320kbps, well mixed/mastered MP3 and a comparative 16bit WAV on your average club system or iPod?

If not, welcome to the majority.

If so, kudos to you (though to be honest, I can't help but doubt such claims) but unless your target market consists entirely of audiophiles, those who can't hear the difference won't pay the difference (or sacrifice the benefits of MP3 format) for higher quality.

Sad but true.

On the side topic of "consumer listening", I have noticed that many people I have spoken to (that are not involved in audio) can't even separate individual sounds in a mix. Those conversations go something like this:

ME: What do you think of that snare sound?
LISTENER: What's a snare?
ME: (Thinks: Fair enough) It's the sounds that goes:
"whack... whack... whack..."
*gestures each time the snare hits*
LISTENER: Uhhh... What do you mean?
ME: It's a drum sound that...
LISTENER: *blank look*
ME: OK, the sharp loud noise that comes in every time I move my hand...
LISTENER: *blank look*
ME: OK, it sort of sounds like this:
*makes vaguely snarish sound to demonstrate*
LISTENER: Uhh... What do you mean? Isn't it all just music?

True, recurring story...

:S

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Tue May 13, 2008 5:09 am

feel better about yourselves?

come to my house, and make everything flat. oh, wait, it is. but i don't know shit about quality, nor do i know what a snare or treble is. too bad i am sick and fucking tired of the horrible clutter cd's have made, and go all pod all the time. i should fucking shoot myself. that small amount of noise at -60dB and slight high end roll off are essential to properly enjoy music. maybe you can LEARN me.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue May 13, 2008 6:12 am

Truth be told, Mp3's have done muuuuuch more for the peeps on this board than hi rez audio. Might as well shake your fist at the sun for being bright.
High-end audio is fucking hard to roll.

Another thing, Mp3's have brought a level playing field to the home recording masses. Now your mp3's can sound like the Beatles mp3's?.
As I mentioned before, ya still gotta get it upstream no matter what. "Ok Computer" still sounds awesome at 128kbs. Hmm, wonder why?

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue May 13, 2008 6:41 am

kk - glad you're around.

Dcease - fuck off. yeah, now I feel better.

IMO "it doesn't matter" applies to a lot of this stuff, but at the same time it's good to know what's going on. pick your battles.

in time disk space will be even cheaper (and solid state), compressed audio won't matter. for now, keep your pimp hand strong and your ears open.

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Tue May 13, 2008 8:32 am

I guess you are right, or i hope you are right Tone! I the near future the internet speed will be a lot faster and like you say'd a Terrabyte disk only cost a couple of bucks, and then the Mp3 file just aint making any sense anymore.

To some of the other people who means that it's difficult to hear the difference between original and 320 mp's, i can only say that i can easyly hear the difference

The fidelity isn't present in a 320 mp3 file! no matter how you compress the file.....

And i think it's like going backwards, to take the example how it was for 40 years ago (reggae releases) this would mean that in the future live starts with version 50, and then Ableton will release 49, 48, 47 ect......and with every release we will get more and more bugs, because it just doesent matter????

thats not the right way to go, i guess. Why then even bother at all? Lets make music with a tape deck, cutting it up, like in the old day's with the 78rpm record

No i want quality!

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue May 13, 2008 8:47 am

first you must convince yourself that there is no DAW.