interesting fact

  kokoon said:

THE ARTICLE SAYS THE KIDS PREFER THE SOUND OF 128k MP3 OVER LOSSLESS

I, for one, actually read the article, and I can tell you that the "sizzle sound" of a 128k MP3 is not pleasant in the least. Fucking kids and their miserable music collections; all 128k MP3, mistagged by Limewire abuse, no complete albums... god, I feel sick.

I love the "kids" overgeneralisation.

Anyway,. I couldnt care less about what bitrate they encode their music. If they are not enough intelligent to know about personnal archiving, its their fucking problem. Price of bandwidth/HD is so low there's no need for compression anymore (the only reason why MP3 exist). And it will continue to go lower.

  Rogueofmv said:

I, for one, actually read the article, and I can tell you that the "sizzle sound" of a 128k MP3 is not pleasant in the least. Fucking kids and their miserable music collections; all 128k MP3, mistagged by Limewire abuse, no complete albums... god, I feel sick.

maybe they like it because it adds a nice minimal-flavor to their tracks

  kokoon said:

THE ARTICLE SAYS THE KIDS PREFER THE SOUND OF 128k MP3 OVER LOSSLESS

well maybe they don't have enough money to afford larger storage capacities

i highly doubt anyone on this board can tell the difference between a high quality mp3 and a cd. i can vaguely hear a difference in a 128 kpbs mp3 and lossless. the 128 is usually louder due to some level of distortion and more muddy. maybe that's why "the kids" (what a ridiculous generalization) like it. it's loud and sounds a bit dirtier, and in a rock format that can work. i've actually always found this kind of funny coming from the idm crowd who sometimes insist on listening to music that is intentionally distorted to hell. and if you listen to shoegaze, lo fi, early aphex twin...i mean, having the music sound a bit muddier might add to it, actually.

  jim said:

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.

A lot of this depends on how well the files are encoded, but low bit-rate mp3s take away bits of sound and add artefacts, they do sound rubbish. Have you ever actually compared a dodgy 128 mp3 from a file sharing site and a .wav from somewhere like Beatport / Bleep?

If you're in a club / at a festival etc you can really really hear the difference. With respect, I think you're just used to listening to music on your laptop / ipod which aren't really the most transparent / quality ways to get the most out of music. You certainly won't be getting any quality sub bass anyway!

Artists / Engenieers / Mastering houses spend a long time trying to get a really good sound and crap mp3s kind of ruin that.

  zaphod said:

and if you listen to shoegaze, lo fi, early aphex twin...i mean, having the music sound a bit muddier might add to it, actually.

would you compare shitty quality (thats what a 128kb mp3 is) to eg the typical sizzling vinyl-sound?

What the hell are "young people" listening to nowadays anyway? How is this relevent to my idm's?

  EDGEY said:

What the hell are "young people" listening to nowadays anyway? How is this relevent to my idm's?

1. Shit

2. It isn't.

  plstik said:

  zaphod said:

and if you listen to shoegaze, lo fi, early aphex twin...i mean, having the music sound a bit muddier might add to it, actually.

 

would you compare shitty quality (thats what a 128kb mp3 is) to eg the typical sizzling vinyl-sound?

no, i wouldn't, because vinyl isn't shitty sound quality. that isn't what i was trying to say.

Mind a 128 MP3 will have a smaller range of frequencies compared to any lossless format so nothing in 128 will sound better than lossless, regardless of the type of music.

Fuckin' listen to my shoegaze as it was intended.

jesus...i know that it won't sound better, i'm trying to make a point that aesthetically, sometimes muddier music might be more appealing for whatever reason, depending on the style of music.

  zaphod said:

jesus...i know that it won't sound better, i'm trying to make a point that aesthetically, sometimes muddier music might be more appealing for whatever reason, depending on the style of music.

i.e.

Iron & Wine - The Creek Drank the Cradle

Devendra Banhart - Oh Me Oh My... The Way the Day Goes By The Sun is Setting Dogs are Dreaming Lovesongs of the Christmas Spirit

Two very lo-fi albums, rather compressed, and listenable at pretty much any bitrate above 64.

i dont have an mp3player, i still have a discman

when i let some ipodfriends hear some music trough the headphones, they all had the same opinion: "holy SHIT! that's good quality!"

don't know if this has a point, just a li'l anecdote that i want to tell wich seems to fit in this particular thread

But it's already recorded lofi for you.

some people (kids) might dislike high frequencies because they can actually hear them. perhaps mastering engineers/producers boost high frequencies too much on rock records (well, they do don't they?). bands like The Strokes became popular with students partly for their lo-fi sound and cymballess drum kit. tom drums are preferred.

it doesn't say the students preferred mp3 for the other genres. the other genres were orchestral and jazz, neither of those are likely to be 'over-produced'.

watmm is full of kids

jesus fuckin christ, i'm really sorry i wrote "kids".

I bet the 12 year old Aphex would never put up with that 128k shit.

128k MP3s is still far more than I've got, I'm stuck at about 15,000

Who the fuck cares? There's better things to get your panties in a knot over. Everyone I know who has any musical sensibilities only uses >192k and can tell the difference. You might as well make an angry thread saying KIDS TODAY WATCH AMERICAN IDOL or KIDS TODAY LIKE LINKIN PARK!

"Ruined music" my ass. Sensationalist tripe.

you're gay

no u

no, U