I Just Hate That MP3 Sound Quality....

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:01 pm

....the more i hear it, the more i hate it.......anyone else?

I just love to listen to full releases in maximum studio quality, that's sounds like flowers in my ears!

Why listen to a cheap mp3, when they got equipment for millions in the studios around the world?

Hopefully the Mp3 will not survive the future! Or are all listeners today really that deaf? or doesen't anybody care about the sound quality anymore...?

The MP3 sound is just really bad sounding...........Sorry!

creature · Post by **creature** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:14 pm

I would hope that downloads would start to steer towards flacs in the future. Not that many players seem to support them yet though

kaffein · Post by **kaffein** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:26 pm

I buy everything in flac/cd...

I prefer ogg for compressed versions over mp3, but I bought an ipod nano... So all my re-encoded all my FLACs into 320kbps mp3s. (archiving the FLACs of course)

Do note that iPods support Apple Lossless which is essentially "mac FLAC" if you will.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:37 pm

listeners really are that deaf.

try having a conversation with someone who is not involved in audio production about the quality of a certain tune. You will be surprised how little they care.

A typical example from this weekend when I was listening to one of my own tracks in someones car:

ME: does this track sound too treble-y to you?
LISTENER : Er, possibly ...
ME : I just wondered if I've made it over-bright
LISTENER : to be honest I don't really know what 'treble' means
ME: you know the high-end, the hissy stuff (makes hissy trebly noises)
LISTENER : oooh, riiight, I think I see now (obviously has no idea)
ME : you don't know what the hell I mean do you
LISTENER : no , I still don;t get it.
ME: You must have used the dials on your Hi-Fi that say 'treble and bass' though and figured out what happens
LISTENER : er, I suppose I must have ...
ME : you haven't have you
LISTENER : no, I haven't

that is a true conversation with a real live music consumer. Amazing isn't it!

We then went on to have a (group) discussion about how MP3 quality and no-one had even the slightest idea about why I would care about 'compression' or sound quality, which as far as they are concerned is totally fine . 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.

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

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Mon May 12, 2008 2:50 pm

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

kristoffer1989 · Post by **kristoffer1989** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:06 pm

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

+1

stonee · Post by **stonee** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:13 pm

Angstrom wrote:listeners really are that deaf.

try having a conversation with someone who is not involved in audio production about the quality of a certain tune. You will be surprised how little they care.

A typical example from this weekend when I was listening to one of my own tracks in someones car:

ME: does this track sound too treble-y to you?
LISTENER : Er, possibly ...
ME : I just wondered if I've made it over-bright
LISTENER : to be honest I don't really know what 'treble' means
ME: you know the high-end, the hissy stuff (makes hissy trebly noises)
LISTENER : oooh, riiight, I think I see now (obviously has no idea)
ME : you don't know what the hell I mean do you
LISTENER : no , I still don;t get it.
ME: You must have used the dials on your Hi-Fi that say 'treble and bass' though and figured out what happens
LISTENER : er, I suppose I must have ...
ME : you haven't have you
LISTENER : no, I haven't

that is a true conversation with a real live music consumer. Amazing isn't it!

We then went on to have a (group) discussion about how MP3 quality and no-one had even the slightest idea about why I would care about 'compression' or sound quality, which as far as they are concerned is totally fine . 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.

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

I think we can all relate to this.

your "music consumers" are a little bit more polite than my music consumers though

polyslax · Post by **polyslax** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:28 pm

I think you have to weigh the listening environment as well. Probably something in the neighbourhood of 80 percent + listens are taking place under less than ideal conditions (iPods, autos, boomboxes etc) where compressed audio may not be such a big deal.

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Mon May 12, 2008 4:42 pm

To Angstrom.........

xzusa8ky · Post by **xzusa8ky** » Mon May 12, 2008 4:49 pm

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

You are talking about the music! I am talking about the SOUND QUALITY!!

It's really seems to be alot of people not knowing a S... about sound quality here!

But it's never to late..........to learn.....Kids!

D K · Post by **D K** » Mon May 12, 2008 5:15 pm

my next release will be vinyl.
i believe there is hope...
i recently completed a tour where the band i worked for brought vinyl...
it literally flew off the merch table while the cd's sat,
selling out early in the tour.
someone out there is listening...

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Mon May 12, 2008 5:36 pm

xzusa8ky wrote:
You are talking about the music! I am talking about the SOUND QUALITY!!

It's really seems to be alot of people not knowing a S... about sound quality here!

But it's never to late..........to learn.....Kids!

no im talking about both the music and the sound quality. while its ideal to have the best possible quality, im just saying if its a good enough song then it doesnt matter...i listen to lots of old reggae where the quality is terrible but the songs would lose so much if they were clean & sparkly.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:05 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:i listen to lots of old reggae where the quality is terrible but the songs would lose so much if they were clean & sparkly.

hardly the same thing now, is it? besides, doesn't that also mean that the sound quality isn't "terrible", it's more likely a major part of the vibe of the songs?

I don't really think the same can be said about compression formats.

"aah, crappy aac... I get such a designer-Apple vibe from that iTunes ganja, mon"

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

Thanks Machinate!

Five Stars for you *****

Ps: Du er jo også dansker!

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:13 pm

but then look at the fashion for 8 bit music, or the 'redux' live device - both are harking back to a technological limitation of a previous era. Not so long ago either. There may well be a day when there is an Mp3 plugin to get that old-timey sound.

regarding the "good song will cut through" sentiment, that is almost exactly what I was told on the weekend. Everyone (but me) agreed that a 96kbps track with one side missing that has a burst of static every now and then and has an underlying mains hum is perfectly acceptable as long as the song is a good one.

I gave up trying to convince them otherwise as I was looking exceedingly geeky already and it was (almost literally) falling on deaf ears