chuckocaster odd thought #1.

[chuckocaster]

totally ripped you off amigo, mr. cygnus, sorry. but...

after cruising the internet for awhile, listening to Itunes, i've remembered how much i don't like it. sure it's cool for being able to listen to lots of different songs without the huge computer space needed to store them all in a different format. but damn, the highs are smeared and the bass is loose! i don't think most people can hear it, but the sampling rate used for it is unacceptable! sure it's easy, but i really hate it.

anyone else feel the same? do you even care? i bet i'm crazy.

discuss.

[Erock_Germany]

I am with you man. I got sick of listening to music with my "personal" stereo a while ago - no iPod or such (i have an iPhone but do not really use it for music)

There is no substitute for listening to a good stereo with good speakers. Now, I have hooked up my computer to the stereo, burned all my most listened to CDs to the harddrive in MP3 at a high sample rate so I can listen to albums, make play lists, shuffle etc......

But as far as the ear plugged music - only when I travel and even then I lust for the audio dynamics of my stereo.....

[Cygnus X1]

The only qualification is a mind that thinks in pretzel logic, chucko!

I guess that the format is ok for portability, or for vehicular use where the background noise is a factor enough to make me not really notice the degradaton in quality.

Otherwise even CD's sound like garbage compared to a nice LP.
And newer recordings using all that d*amned processing and compression...don't even get me started!

[Kap'n]

I listen to MP3 disks in my car, but I don't download songs, or own an Ipod.

I want the high quality hard copy and I hate headphones.

[Don]

I don't usually hear it but then I've never had a very good stereo either. I've wasted all my money on guitars, amps and pedals!

[grandturk]

iTunes, MP3, iPod, whatever - sounds fine to me.

[pseudocat]

I don't "i".

Anything with "i" attached to it means pesky, impossible-to-eradicate, spywarelike software that can't be deleted off a system, so I just don't bother with any of it.

[ch willie]

My IPOD sounds worse than my old Walkman sounded. I sit on my deck in the evenings, listening to it. I've tried better headphones, but it doesn't help. When I play the same tunes on my stereo--wonderful.

[wingnut1]

That's why I went with a Zune instead of an iPod. The WMA file format keeps more of the dynamics that you loose when converting it to an mp3 that will work on the iPod.

[Mesotech]

Worse than the iTunes/iPod/MP3 technology, I dislike the fact that even radio today seems to have adopted the formats. I can remember when listening to the radio wasn't as good as sitting at home listening to the album on a nice sound system, but it was still light years better than the radio broadcasts of today. I can't withstand the bit smear on the high end, the flabby bass, the sterile mids, or the highly compressed brick walled stuff coming from my car stereo. I'd much rather listen to a good CD instead.

I personally think that MP3's are ok for portability, but if there's something I hear in MP3 format that I consider worth listening to again, I'll go get a CD.

[boobtube21]

I don't like the sound of it either. iTunes is handy for file sharing, like sending temporary MP3 song mixes over the 'net to bandmates, and making cd's of practice recordings and such. For me it excels there in ease of use, but the sound quality is crap. I don't even know where my iPod is, haven't used it in over a year.

I don't think it will die anytime soon though. Kids today (like any other gen probably) prefer quantity over quality.

[grandturk]

I'll go get a CD.

Do they still make CD's? Talk about a dead technology.

[chuckocaster]

sad part is, cd's have been outdated for the past 15 years.

[elicross]

If somebody started a service like iTunes or Rhapsody -- but with higher bit rates, different formats, higher quality versions of the same songs -- would you guys pay a little extra for it? I'm thinking it could be a success. Not as big as iTunes, but still a success.

I guess it would all depend on how many people could hear the difference, how good their stereos were, and how much they were willing to play for an audible difference.

Somebody get on the horn to Apple and tell 'em to start iTunes Premium. (Actually, it seems like a service like iTunes or Rhapsody could just offer it as an option in their existing interface: Regular price for the regular version of the song, and a little extra for a higher-quality version. Call it "high-def sound for today's media players," and people would get the idea.)

[chuckocaster]

i would, but then again, i'm not everybody.

i'm personally really pumped about neil young putting his archives out on blu ray. seems to me like the most logical choice for doing so.

i think you're right on with the "hi-def" slogan for this new monster, it definitely is a buzzword.

[elicross]

It is disappointing that no new physical audio format has really caught on since the CD. And if people just aren't sufficiently into buying music in a physical format to support a new one, it still seems like a newer, better download format could find an audience. You'd think the music industry would be all over the idea of a new, better format and pushing it like hell -- so we'd all go out and buy new versions of all our music, just like we did when we went from LP or cassette to CD.

Of course, my 60GB player is already almost full, even though most of the music on it is in 192K WMA or MP3 format. If I went to a significantly better format, I'd need a player with more storage...or I'd no longer be able to carry all my music around with me....

[chuckocaster]

Kids today (like any other gen probably) prefer quantity over quality.

i don't think the record companies are inclined to do so mr. cross. it's way easier for them to take the masters, convert them to mp3 and upload them as oppose to pressing the cd's, shipping them out, and then selling them. they are cutting out a bunch of steps, and with it, numerous jobs. but their profit has also gone up. for them it's win/win.

[Cygnus X1]

Do they still make CD's? Talk about a dead technology.

They still make LP's...Vinyl!

[elicross]

i don't think the record companies are inclined to do so mr. cross. it's way easier for them to take the masters, convert them to mp3 and upload them as oppose to pressing the cd's, shipping them out, and then selling them. they are cutting out a bunch of steps, and with it, numerous jobs. but their profit has also gone up. for them it's win/win.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a new physical format. Even if they just managed to successfully push a new, better downloadable format, they'd be able to sell us all our music again.

But I guess they're too busy suing 12-year-old girls to actually think about ways to turn the new distribution model into fresh profits.

[juniorspecial]

I get pretty good listening out of my iTunes through an Apogee Duet. Good d-a conversion makes a big difference.

[grandturk]

They still make LP's...Vinyl!

Don't even get me started on those bye-gone era frisbees...

[Cygnus X1]

Don't even get me started on those bye-gone era frisbees...

Outside of snap, crackle and pop...the dynamic range on LP's is still awesome on a good turntable.

If it's something you haven't experienced...I feel sorry for your loss.

[elicross]

Well, Cyg, there's a whole buncha music lovers today who've never experienced what vinyl sounds like (except maybe at a big, giant event where the DJ was spinning that stuff on a loud, crappy sound system).

I really like how vinyl sounds...when you've got a perfectly new, perfectly clean LP on a great turntable with a great stylus, played through a great stereo.

Unfortunately, even if you're lucky enough to have a setup like that, it can't last. All my favorite LPs are scratchy and dirty, because I played the hell out of them, and as much as I loved them and coddled them, there's just no way to keep scratches and dust off an LP. It's going to degrade in quality, and it's going to degrade fast if you get it out and play it a lot.

Maybe someday, if I'm filthy rich, I'll have a brand-new vinyl copy of The Wall to play every day. Until then, I'll settle for CDs, which are pretty darn good.

[boobtube21]

Yep, there's a tradeoff for everything. Vinyl does sound oustanding on a good stereo, but yeah, the clock is ticking every time you are enjoying it. Even then I think it only benefits certain music. Maybe I'm wrong, but some stuff I don't know if the band's style/production style lends itself well to the rich, sweet sound of LPs.

As far as early punk rock...Bad Religion's "How Could Hell Be Any Worse", Descendent's "Milo Goes To College", early Subhumans (UK) albums and EPs...vinyl reigns king. I have both the cd and lp versions of all the above mentioned material and there is a difference.

[elicross]

I think you're right. Albums recorded in the heyday of vinyl were almost certainly mixed and mastered with vinyl in mind...so it makes sense that they sound best in that format. To use my Pink Floyd example, I wouldn't be surprised if The Wall sounded best on vinyl (as long as the LP was new and the turntable and sound system were very good) just because that was the predominant format when The Wall was recorded and mastered.

It'd be interesting to see if (sticking with Pink Floyd) A Momentary Lapse of Reason sounded better on CD than on vinyl because, by that time, CD was the predominant format.

[Direstraits]

I'm puzzled here - iTunes allows you to select the bitrate at which it records stuff so you should still be able to get high quality recordings on your hard drive - the restricting factor is the size of your iPod - it's no use recording everything in a lossless format if your iPod hasn't got the capacity to hold it all.

[Cygnus X1]

I have some Pantera, Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains on vinyl, and yes-it does retain that famous dynamic range compared to same CD's or other formats.
Eventually we'll get the best of all worlds, but we aren't there just yet.

Then there is the whole other topic of just what they use to record with in the first place.
I think I put up the Carpenters as an example under "Production Values".

[Kap'n]

Most modern records are mixed and mastered like crap, irrespective of the content. Squeeze as much stuff on there as possible so it cuts through on radio and cheap 'hi-fi'.

[Cygnus X1]

http://www.thefenderforum.com/forum/...&highlight=odd

[grandturk]

If it's something you haven't experienced...I feel sorry for your loss.

Oh, I had Sesame Street Disco on LP when I was a kid, so I've "experienced" vinyl.

[Kap'n]

There's certainly space on on that. The strings make the little background wash. While they'll never be my favorite music, I can certainly appreciate their abilites from a playing, singing, songwriting and arragment perspective.

[Kap'n]

Oh, I had Sesame Street Disco on LP when I was a kid, so I've "experienced" vinyl.

I met one of the original Sesame Street puppeteers last weekend. Nice guy. I was a huge fan of his when I was five or six.

[elicross]

http://www.thefenderforum.com/forum/...&highlight=odd

I can't believe they didn't do the "waaaaa-aa-aa-aa-aaaah" part!

[Cygnus X1]

Oh, I had Sesame Street Disco on LP when I was a kid, so I've "experienced" vinyl.

Oh my!
Forgive me, for you have indeed been exposed to the premier voicings that vinyl has to offer!

[photoweborama]

what?

[elicross]

Howdy, Phtot!

[photoweborama]

Howdy, Phtot!

Ditto!

[jerryjg]

'Im an old audiophile. I think some of you might now this by now. Ive still got tons audio gear and speakers, turntables and crap.
Unfortuately i sold off all my old tube amps.
Anyways, yeah... there is a level of sonic texture you simply wo'nt get at the highest level with Solid State gear with old 1st class tube gear, which is now very expensive.
Lots of people, however take the warmth and slow very "Euphonic" tone of old tube hi-fi gear for the absloute sound in audio, which it is far from.
There are now Mark Levinson and Krell designs , among others, which are Solid State sysytems valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are the pinnacle of hi-fi sound technology, yet for all that , some folks still prefer a (now) 10,000 dollar Macintosh tube amp ( I do).
There are merits to both designs, old and new. The old tube amps are slow, somewhat veiled and less articulate. Many of the new tube designs address the issue , making them more solid state like, but in the end, in the audio world, east is east and west is west.
I can garuntee you one thing; with the best speakers , the best solid state amps, you won't be missing tube technology a whole lot. It has, for all intents and purposes, the very best of everything, warmth, detail and accuracy.
What it is not, is "euphonic"..and I still love that out of even the cheaper old tube type gear. Theres a certain slow decay and an ambient texture to the best of the old tube stuff, and even the best of the new to a very small degree falls somewhat short of that dark warmth. As i said- you'll suffer loss detail, and speed of transient response because some of the new mega -expensive exotic systems, the transformers and the power are just so enormous that the headroom is virtually limitless, which plays into the design of some of the new technology ultra accurate loudspeakers.The old speakers are still much in demand for their sweet highs and lovely blooming mid-range, but again, the gap now in the latest speakers is infintessimal ( not a reference to 'Infinitys' speakers).
If you just want to listen to the music and enjoy it, then don't quibble ; A good old tube receiver or even the nice solid sate designs will sound rich, thick, and enjoyable.
I went off on a tangent, cause this was more about the media, or at least it had evolved into the discussion of Vinyl vs. Cd.
Some of the greatest old recordings on the Mercury, RCA and toher fine labels, useing the finest sounding Neumann mics and Scully lathes to cut the vinyl and Ampex Tube processing gear, and made in the best ambient atmosphere of the words greatest recording halls and with the legendary composers and with the finest symphony orchestras orchestras, ( or in the Jazz school, with Blue Not and other labels utilizing the same fine processes for recording)can never be duplicated . Some of these recordings are now very expensive IF you can find them at all in at ;least very good condition. Many are now unplayable> I used to look for them,and found some- way fewer than the effort i put into i was worth I suppose, but now they are so scarce you have to compete on Ebay for them.
I would like to say that the digital recording process, despite the MP3 format which the OP doesn't like very much, also has a lot of potential, but isn't really utilized properly.
As far as CD 's. The technology exists to record some just fabulous digital recordings equal to the greatest of analog vinyl , at east with the difference of the the dimensionality and texture I have already tried to define about the best of the vintage qualities, which becomes almost a non -issue with the finest new audio gear.
Most of the limitations in in source recording. Thats a generality that is pretty true.
There are many CD's recorded with Analog t digital that rival some of the best of the old warm tube recordings, however, they are rare and you'll pay a good price for them.
Oh yeah. All that I just said doesn't have much directly to do with your intial concern aboutthe MP3 players. When you squash all that music down and try to get it back from one of those tiny little units it can't be a good thing.
Some of them are better than others I've heard.