interesting fact

http://i.gizmodo.com/5166649/ipods-and-you...destroyed-music

  Quote

When I first did this I was expecting to hear preferences for uncompressed audio and expecting to see MP3 (at 128, 160 and 192 bit rates) well below other methods (including a proprietary wavelet-based approach and AAC). To my surprise, in the rock examples the MP3 at 128 was preferred. I repeated the experiment over 6 years and found the preference for MP3 - particularly in music with high energy (cymbal crashes, brass hits, etc) rising over time.

that's pretty bad. i mean BAD.

When your entire MP3 "library" is awash with 64k XING ripped lovelies acquired through the means of Limewire, a 128 AAC will sound heavenly, I'd imagine. Anything higher (V0, Q6 or FLAC) would just be alien, ohnoez!1

90% of music doesn't deserve to sound any better than mp3.

Sadly, I have to concur ever so slightly with the above post.

gantz graf sounds like pudding in mp3, while flac sounds like broken glass.

now you gotta ask yourself what it is you prefer? broken glass or pudding.

there were many occasions where i told people that they should pay attention to this particular lossless track. after i compared it to the same track encoded in 128kbps, they noticed the difference.

the thing is that majority of people don't pay attention to what are they actually hearing (that's also why pop records sell more :P). portable music devices are often used in public areas with a lot of background noise and distractions...

my friend converted his entire music collection (which he had accumulated over many years) into 128kbps MP3. lol.

  Godwin Austen said:

the thing is that majority of people don't pay attention to what are they actually hearing (that's also why pop records sell more :P). portable music devices are often used in public areas with a lot of background noise and distractions...

yes, absolutely

i honestly don't notice the difference between hard music formats and 128k mp3. maybe my ears are just fucked.

unless it's all squared-off, in which case it sounds shite

In all honesty, I am not much of a music snob. I think mp3 is adequate, lossless and vinyl I reserve for special purchases. Im sure my views reflect the majority of posters here. Snatching another made up statistic from the air...I recon about 90+% of online music buyers dont even know there is (or care for) an alternative.

I can tell the diff between 128 kbps MP3 and V0 easily, but I still can't hear any difference between a high-quality MP3 and FLAC/WAV or a CD.

Might my shitty headphones be the main cause of this? Or am I just not pretentious and snobby enough to truly appreciate music?

High volume levels is where I notice the greatest difference, it is simply cleaner and with sharper definition.

  Rogueofmv said:

I can tell the diff between 128 kbps MP3 and V0 easily, but I still can't hear any difference between a high-quality MP3 and FLAC/WAV or a CD.

 

Might my shitty headphones be the main cause of this? Or am I just not pretentious and snobby enough to truly appreciate music?

nah, that's the same for me. i ripped a few of my CDs in flac for computer collection, and can't really tell the difference between that v0. i think v0 is fine.

  idrn said:

my friend converted his entire music collection (which he had accumulated over many years) into 128kbps MP3. lol.

i convert whatever i put onto my ipod to around 128 simply for space reasons + i only use ipod with crappy earphones so it doesnt really matter.

128 mp3s are fine, people get too precious about this shit, yeah if you have the option then higher bitrates are slightly better but there's very little music that is so subtle in its construction that the compression will wreck the general effect

and that includes the stuff watmmers listen to

reminds me of my brother: he and his friends rip music from youtube-clips cause they call it "legal". They don´t care that it sounds like shit at <96kb .

i can tell the difference between 128kbps and the higher bitrates. 128 is definitely not fine, if you think it is, then it's your loss. so fuck you.

  plstik said:

reminds me of my brother: he and his friends rip music from youtube-clips cause they call it "legal". They don´t care that it sounds like shit at <96kb .

Ew.

They don't even use the &fmt=18 tag?

woaoaaww what amazing ears you have!

missed the point entirely

  Rogueofmv said:

  plstik said:

reminds me of my brother: he and his friends rip music from youtube-clips cause they call it "legal". They don´t care that it sounds like shit at <96kb .

 

Ew.

They don't even use the &fmt=18 tag?

i dont think they know that feature on youtube

i really didn't mean to unleash this losless/mp3 flamewar, i just found it shocking that the kids actually PREFER THE 128k MP3 OVER THE LOSSLESS VERSION!!!

Yeah, you're right i agree it's weird. Sounds like they think it improves the sound somehow. I was simply commenting that having a relativly low bitrate of 128 isn't as detrimental to the sound as some people (like to) think. But yeah, it hardly improves it.

i didnt read the article but from what i can see your saying its about how young people are stupid for listening to music at low bitrates. Id rather listen to a tune in the best quality i can get it in but at the same time you cant polish a turd and most music is turds so it dosent really matter. if its a good track it should sound good at any bitrate or sound quality or through any sound system and in fact i think a lot of my favourite records sound pretty shitty and are all the better for it (selected ambient works 1 anyone ?) so the idea that it has to be in crystal clear perfect quality is ridiculous. i think the main problem with electronic music at the moment is that you got a bunch of people who can make a track sound good technically but have absolutely no musical talent or anything to say whatsoever which leads to basically over complicated programming and little production tricks that are the musical equivalent of a dreary, tear soaked masturbation session or a steve vai/ joe satriani wanky guitar solo . it isnt any wonder that nobody wants to listen or be involved in this kind of music.

  Shit Attack said:

i didnt read the article but from what i can see your saying its about how young people are stupid for listening to music at low bitrates. Id rather listen to a tune in the best quality i can get it in but at the same time you cant polish a turd and most music is turds so it dosent really matter. if its a good track it should sound good at any bitrate or sound quality or through any sound system and in fact i think a lot of my favourite records sound pretty shitty and are all the better for it (selected ambient works 1 anyone ?) so the idea that it has to be in crystal clear perfect quality is ridiculous. i think the main problem with electronic music at the moment is that you got a bunch of people who can make a track sound good technically but have absolutely no musical talent or anything to say whatsoever which leads to basically over complicated programming and little production tricks that are the musical equivalent of a dreary, tear soaked masturbation session or a steve vai/ joe satriani wanky guitar solo . it isnt any wonder that nobody wants to listen or be involved in this kind of music.

word

ok well reading it anyway its mainly talking about how people prefer rock records at low bitrates which is totally understandable. rock music isnt meant to be polished sounding shit it sounds better when its grungy and nasty sounding. its no accident most of the best rock records were made 40 odd years ago when the sound and equipment was shittier.