Phoenix Gold Phorum

So why is that? are mp4 files, store boughtcds, burned discs, youtube videos, USBs different why, and which of these are the best when it comes to playing music

its a compressed format. You can't compress it and keep everything

I can record something here on my DAW and save it uncompressed (as a .wav file) and as a .mp3 file and play both back though the same monitor system and can hear a distinct difference, and not just in the bass. Between the mp3 compression format and mastering engineers slamming the mix against the limiter (EVERYTHING between digital 0db and -3db), recorded music really sounds like crap these days.

I think people forget that sonically speaking mp3's were a step back from cd's in order to get the convenience of making it easier to carry.

For me the trade off is acceptable. In my old car before MP3's I had a couple notebooks of CD's that I'd flip through, most of which only had one or two songs that I'd jam, and I found myself switching discs every ten minutes. Later on I was uploading CD's to my computer, and then burning them back to CD to play in the car to cut down on disc changes, which of course saw some deterioration in quality. Now I just about listen to the ipod touch exclusively as a matter of convenience. If I was ever competing I'd use a CD for that, but that'd be about it.

With the price reduction of terrabyte hard drives, faster download speeds and so forth, don't be surprised if they come out with a digital format that retains the CD quality sound, but results in a much larger data size for each track in the near future.

Unfortunately, no one hardly uses FLAC compression. From what I have read about it, it is almost "lossless" and MUCH better at compression than mp3. For a PC or for tunes on a USB thumb drive in my truck, I have found that WMA lossless to be acceptable. I think this is a similar compression to FLAC.

Kirghiz wrote:For me the trade off is acceptable. In my old car before MP3's I had a couple notebooks of CD's that I'd flip through, most of which only had one or two songs that I'd jam, and I found myself switching discs every ten minutes. Later on I was uploading CD's to my computer, and then burning them back to CD to play in the car to cut down on disc changes, which of course saw some deterioration in quality. Now I just about listen to the ipod touch exclusively as a matter of convenience. If I was ever competing I'd use a CD for that, but that'd be about it.

With the price reduction of terrabyte hard drives, faster download speeds and so forth, don't be surprised if they come out with a digital format that retains the CD quality sound, but results in a much larger data size for each track in the near future.

so if you dont got a store boyght album, what would your preference be?

So if I buy music from, say iTunes, are the files not as good as a cd would be?

correct. AT the highest rate its still a good signal that most people will not notice or care about but as with any mp3 file there is some loss.

Have to agree here, the cd sounds so much better than an i-tunes track, its a bug bear of mine. I would rather pay more for quality. Just on a side note I used to notice the difference between cd's too, some sounded better, anyone else used to notice this?

PhuckinGood wrote:Have to agree here, the cd sounds so much better than an i-tunes track, its a bug bear of mine. I would rather pay more for quality. Just on a side note I used to notice the difference between cd's too, some sounded better, anyone else used to notice this?

Yes, some cd's deff sound bad. They are pressed like records in a way, when the die wears out they sound like crap. the worst offenders for me have been Tool opiate and dj magic mike and the royal posse. I went threw multiple discs of both before i found good ones.

For everyday listening I think 256kps mp4 sounds OK, for critical listening there is no substitute for straight off the cd

pressed like a die? I almost got a job at sony digital audio disk trust me they are burned just like you and I do just at much higher speeds.

Yes I use too be able to hear small things on cd's that you definitely can't hear on mp3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_manufacturing

Many ways to skin a cat My understanding is that on mass produced discs they are made from a physical master not burned from a file


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Di ... eplication

guess things changed since that interview. interesting

Even with CD's, modern mastering is so poor, It will still sound like crap compared to what it could sound like. This will explain better.....

whodathunk the strokes and metallica are not known as SQ bands/albums?

Here's another that I saw years ago..... This one is Paul McCartney

ttocs wrote:whodathunk the strokes and metallica are not known as SQ bands/albums?

LOL I always use Enter Sandman to set the crossovers with. It's one of the hardest songs to get blended right with the subs and mids, and by God if you can do it, you shouldn't mess with it anymore.

I use Steely Dan - Aja as well as Flim & the BB's - Further Adventures. Both discs are over 20 years old and are about all I use them for. Rarely do I listen to them except for when I need to refresh myself with what they are suppose to sound like through my reference monitors. Great dynamics on both.

ttocs wrote:whodathunk the strokes and metallica are not known as SQ bands/albums?

Thats probably why I listened to Death Magnetic once and then threw it in a drawer. just sounded like White noise to me.

After watching/listening to that video,it makes more sense to me now why my sons cds sound so noisy and it makes it so hard to tune.I find myself turning the 1k to 2k down 2 to sometimes 4 notches to make it seem less noisy,but on all my cds that range is always flat.

Death Magnetic sounded great on my factory speakers, not so much once I put the system in.

They are doing something different here lately though on some of the mp3 recordings, though not sure what. Albums that have come out on itunes in the last two months or so have sounded much better. Pop Evil's Onyx and Escape The Fate's Ungrateful are two of the best sounding albums I've gotten off itunes.

Well that brings up one more probem with the mp3 format, who/where are you getting your recording from and where did they get theirs? Advantage cd IMO.

wow those videos were definitely insightful but i dont get the point in this whole loudness war

I am just not sure I totally agree with those videos. I think compairing recordings from decades ago when they were not using as much distortion in their music intentionally as they do today, nor having the possibility of adding as many different sounds/instruments/effects to the music as they do today makes it a difficult comparison at best. What did the original analog autotune from the 70's sound like and did it sound better then the autotunes of today(Rhetorical question)? Are the sampled/layered/repeated bass-beats/tracks that are used daily in todays tracks turned up too high in comparison to the way they did it in the early days of recording when it sounded all sounded better? Who is too say they didn't do it all then, like they do in 99.9% of modern recordings but that is not too say that there are not still cd's out there that have good sound, dynamic range. I think the modern way is laughable at best of compressing all your music to mp3 quality and then justifying $200 noise cancelling headphones to get the best sound out of them. Of course then when I had a discman I had a fairly cheap set of headphones too listen to cd-quality sound.

About a month ago a friend and I got into a small argument when he commented the record he bought that day and in a joke I asked why he was still buying those things? Found out later he had been arguing with the wife about them earlier that week and she had about the same reaction to it I did. Personally I can understand a persons attraction to records and the sound they make but I am not going to go as far as too say it sounds better. Different - yes, warmer as they all like too say - idunno I think through the correct digital manipulation that you can get just as good of sound as you can from an analog recording. The point I finally got him to see my side of the coin was that he has been in the tv/satalite sales fr some time now. I asked him if a modern digital signal is as good or better then an old analog signal? He of course agree the modern digital signal was superior and the old signals can't compete. So then I asked him - if a digital signal can keep up with the extreme conditions that a tv has to show from the subtle changes in colors to depth/darkness of the shadows and the brigh flashes of gunfire/lightning/explosions to how fast/smooth it all happens and do it so well - how come we can't recreate sound digitally as good or better then analog recordings? I also put it down too him that the analog recording that he was playing on his record was more then likely recorded/mastered at a digital level now, then put into analog(digitally ironically enough) so that he can then play it.

I will admit that a modern recording is different then one from the 70's and that anything remastered is certainly going to be different. Just like when they started to colorize the black/white pictures of the past the fogeys complained,"It doesn't look the same/as good"! Well we are now the fogeys complaining that mp3's don't sound as good as cd's. Difference is we are right so idunno...

Today its about less dynamics and impact and more sound shoved in your face so you can hear everything equally at the same time. The minute nuances that accented a song on a great system of yesterday are nearly just as loud as the kick drum that should be pounding the back of your head. Okay that might be a bit of an overstatement but that's what has brought on the loudness war. Starting in the early 90's and shoved forward by Oasis' initial release, since then everyone felt they needed to try to be as loud and in your face to keep up and stand out when played back on the radio.

The finer details, the impact and punch of a truly dynamic album can truly be experienced on a well pieced together system that is installed properly. Mp3's can sound just fine by the way, most people wouldn't be able to hear a difference back to back between a CD and a quality encoded MP3 above 192KBps.

Oh, and I believe CD quality degradation to be a myth. This is digital media... 1's and 0's... It is indeed pressed in a similar method to records but that's where the similarity ends. There may be a minute difference between the pits from disc to disc but the laser is only reading whether there is a pit present or not, a 1 or a 0, plus for each bit there is error correction as a backup to help with scuffs and scratches. The only difference you'll hear from CD to another identical CD is going to be a click, pop or a skip on a badly damaged album. If you're hearing something else then that's a result of a remastering of an album which is commonplace today. In most cases modern remasters are known to be loud, flat and lifeless while the originals tend to sound more impactful and dynamic on a nice system.