Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The ultimate audiophile poll
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe ultimate audiophile poll
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Poll Question: What do you think?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [16.67%]
25 [83.33%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 13:17

^ Of course I agree that an uncompressed file sounds better than a compressed file - that's not the point. But I can listen to a compressed file and enjoy it almost as much as I enjoy listening to an uncompressed file. I can listen to it and forget that it's compressed.

Incidentally: There are huge differences in quality ... independent of the bitrate. There are absolutely horrible 320kbps files and awesome sounding 128kbps files. Why? Because there are a few things which can be done horribly wrong when creating the files:
 
- Bad drive -> interpolation of the CD data or dropouts
- Analog audio extraction instead of digital: The signal has to be converted from D to A and then again be digitized (A -> D), creating increasingly bad distortion (errors multiply).
- If analog: interference introduced by the crappy cable from CD drive to soundcard
- Bad codec
- Volume normalization or effects (compression, de-noiser etc.) applied by ripping tool
 
All these things can be easily avoided ... and whenever you conduct listening tests with mp3s you have to be sure that these things are avoided, or else the result means nothing at all.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 25 2006 at 13:19
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Sacred 22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1509 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 12:13
Smile
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ "cheap transistor radios" ... I think I could adapt to that if I had to (I'd rather do that than stop listening to music), but thats two or three (5-10, actually) steps below my definition of cheap systems. Consider an mp3 player with some songs ripped at 192kbps + a computer with a decend sound card (X-Fi, preferably) + Logitech 5.1 speakers for 70 EUR. THAT is what I call a system that is "cheap" by audiophile standards, but IMO still a damn nice listening experience.
    
 
Like I say, it's all relative. If you enjoy your system and it brings you joy then who is to argue. I do have a problem with mp3 recordings though. The rate of compression is very high and this always effects the sound quality. That's why so many people complain about "digital harshness". Compression allows for more storage of data, music in this case. I would at least stick to WAV format, but if you are happy, well so be it. Smile
 
It's very popular now to build a music system around a personal computer and I think that it's possible to get decent sound. It's not as good as a decent home system but I am sure the gap will close as time goes by.
 
For me it was something I wanted. I wanted good organic sound because music for me is everything. The better it's reproduced the happier I am. 
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:38
^ "cheap transistor radios" ... I think I could adapt to that if I had to (I'd rather do that than stop listening to music), but thats two or three (5-10, actually) steps below my definition of cheap systems. Consider an mp3 player with some songs ripped at 192kbps + a computer with a decend sound card (X-Fi, preferably) + Logitech 5.1 speakers for 70 EUR. THAT is what I call a system that is "cheap" by audiophile standards, but IMO still a damn nice listening experience.
    

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 25 2006 at 04:43
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Sacred 22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1509 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 04:23
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Sacred 22 Sacred 22 wrote:

I can't vote on this one.
I will say this though. Anyone can enjoy music on any playback system you listen to but, the better the playback system the better the listening experience. I have a fairly expensive system and you bet it aids me in hearing the music and thus better enjoying the music. It's like a nice sports car enhances my driving experience.
 
 
 
would you say that if that expensive system was taken away from you that you couldn't really enjoy music anymore? BTW: I think that the sports car analogy is only partially valid, in my opinion the difference between cheap and expensive systems (like I defined them in the first post) is not as clearly measurable as the difference between cheap and expensive cars. But that's only me!
 
If the expensive system were to be taken away there is no question that my enjoyment of music would be compromised. Before mechanical and electrical music playback systems we had no choice but to listen to music live. The sound was pure and real. Music and all it's emotion or lack of was naked and on display. The closer the playback system is to producing that "live" sound, the more emotional the experience.
Look at it this way. Would your experience of the music you like to listen to be unaffected if you had to listen to it through one of those cheap transistor radios that you buy for under $20.00?
 
Of course it's all relative, but the better the playback system the more enjoyable the listening experience. I only have to listen to the comments expressed by the people who come over and listen to music on my system to know how enjoyable it is for those people. It's one of the best things I ever invested money into. I get enjoyment out of it everyday.
 
I recommend to anyone who loves music to upgrade to a better playback system. You will hear things on your recordings you never heard before.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:48
Originally posted by Sacred 22 Sacred 22 wrote:

I can't vote on this one.
I will say this though. Anyone can enjoy music on any playback system you listen to but, the better the playback system the better the listening experience. I have a fairly expensive system and you bet it aids me in hearing the music and thus better enjoying the music. It's like a nice sports car enhances my driving experience.
 
 
 
would you say that if that expensive system was taken away from you that you couldn't really enjoy music anymore? BTW: I think that the sports car analogy is only partially valid, in my opinion the difference between cheap and expensive systems (like I defined them in the first post) is not as clearly measurable as the difference between cheap and expensive cars. But that's only me!
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 02:44
Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by busy sign?
 
I just meant that in addition to the usual "ringtones" you can now install sounds that play why you're waiting for the other party to answer the call, or if the line is busy (the person you call is already on the phone with someone else).
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Sacred 22 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1509 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2006 at 01:17
I can't vote on this one.
I will say this though. Anyone can enjoy music on any playback system you listen to but, the better the playback system the better the listening experience. I have a fairly expensive system and you bet it aids me in hearing the music and thus better enjoying the music. It's like a nice sports car enhances my driving experience.
 
 
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 24 2006 at 11:57
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by busy sign?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:17
Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Tut tut.
 
Did you know that you can even buy ringtones for the busy sign nowadays?LOL
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2006 at 13:09
Tut tut.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 20:15
Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Hmm... "In Japan and Korea up to 10% of subscribers, as of January 2005, have switched from analog to digital telephone service. A recent Newsweek article suggested that Internet telephony may be "the next big thing." [2]" says Wikipedia. That's probably just whoever wrote it thinking that digital means "using computers", though, since I'd very much doubt Japan would be using such an old system.
 
That's wikipedia ... the second sentence shows that they use "analog" as a synonym for "not-voip".
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 20:13
Hmm... "In Japan and Korea up to 10% of subscribers, as of January 2005, have switched from analog to digital telephone service. A recent Newsweek article suggested that Internet telephony may be "the next big thing." [2]" says Wikipedia. That's probably just whoever wrote it thinking that digital means "using computers", though, since I'd very much doubt Japan would be using such an old system.
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 19:21
I voted for the second option. I have a cheap hi-fi system but with some (suppriseingly for a fiver) great heaphones.
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 17:30
yes - in Germany all telephone communication is routed via ISDN.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 17:29
What do you mean by listening to "old" phones as opposed to digital ones? So far as I'm aware, there isn't a telephone system existing today that doesn't use PCM. If there were, I'm pretty sure it'd be horribly complicated.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 15:54
 It's mine to waste!LOL
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 15:41
Mike, you are wasting your time.
 
Why did he call you a tadpole?LOL


Edited by Snow Dog - April 22 2006 at 15:42
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:42
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

I mean the result is the same. Good night.
 
If you really mean that - fine. But then your ears need to be replaced. You could even hear the difference by listening to headphones that are lying a few meters away from you.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:39
I mean the result is the same. Good night.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:37
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:


"The algorithms are designed to transmit the frequency range of the human languange most effectively, and to cut out the parts that are not necessary.
I agree that it sounds awful sometimes, but it gets the job done. I would never even think about listening to music through such a connection."

MP3 does the same. Tadpol!
 
Wrong facts won't help you either.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.