My MP3 player broke!

ive even tried to listen on a burned 128kbps mp3 cd on a nautilus 802...

it was even hooked up to a gryphon pure class A amp...oh the humanity

ah the pain the pain...i found it impossible to enjoy even my favourite songs...

Edited by Lindsay Lohan

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Bob Greece wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Compared to a good cd, MP3 is: -Harsh, edgy, rough. -Thin -Flat -Lacks of image (sound scene), dynamic, low, high, detail, precision, clarity, precense etc... Phew, that's quite a lot. Considering the huge compression in mp3s it's not surprising. OK, I'll try the test. I'll play an mp3 and a CD version of the same song side by side. As my mp3 player is broken, I will write the mp3 onto a CD first. Here's how you can perform a listening test: Have someone burn two CDs for you - one exact copy of the original CD, the other one from the ripped mp3s. On two identical CD-Rs of course. Then that person marks one CD "A", the other one "B". Then you can listen to them, not knowing which is which. But make it 192bps mp3 ... at 128kbps the difference is easily recognizable.

Even worst: i made this test with an original CD and a computer burned copy from that same cd.
Same adjectives than up for the computer burned CD...
i don't even talk about a MP3 burned CD...

Bob Greece wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Compared to a good cd, MP3 is: -Harsh, edgy, rough. -Thin -Flat -Lacks of image (sound scene), dynamic, low, high, detail, precision, clarity, precense etc... Phew, that's quite a lot. Considering the huge compression in mp3s it's not surprising. OK, I'll try the test. I'll play an mp3 and a CD version of the same song side by side. As my mp3 player is broken, I will write the mp3 onto a CD first.

Here's how you can perform a listening test:

• Have someone burn two CDs for you - one exact copy of the original CD, the other one from the ripped mp3s. On two identical CD-Rs of course. Then that person marks one CD "A", the other one "B". Then you can listen to them, not knowing which is which.

But make it 192bps mp3 ... at 128kbps the difference is easily recognizable.

Compared to a good cd, MP3 is:

-Harsh, edgy, rough.
-Thin
-Flat
-Lacks of image (sound scene), dynamic, low, high, detail, precision, clarity, precense etc...

Bob Greece wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: DONT YOU HEAR THE TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY BETWEEN MP3 AND CD'S I never noticed the difference. Maybe I should get my ears checked?

You have probably very poor headphones.
The difference is also unnoticeable on a computer.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: DONT YOU HEAR THE TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY BETWEEN MP3 AND CD'S

I never noticed the difference. Maybe I should get my ears checked?

Bob Greece wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Be happy for it! Listening to mp3 is painful for your ears and damages your brain you know... Don't CD players do the same?

Yes, but it depends. You'd be amazed what big Cd can do.
Something else than MP3.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Be happy for it! Listening to mp3 is painful for your ears and damages your brain you know...

Don't CD players do the same?

My MP3 player broke after just 10 months.

I decided to buy a portable CD player instead and I'm really pleased with it. It's half the price of what I paid for the MP3 player and it's a Sony so hopefully it'll last longer than the MP3 player did. I have rediscovered the joy of CDs. I had forgotten the pleasure of selecting a CD from the shelf, looking at the cover and putting it in the CD player. Also, I can listen to CDs straightaway after buying them instead of having to rip them all on the computer. The Sony CD player is really good. It remembers where the CD was when you turn it off and starts playing from the same place. Also, it rotates fast and then stops, buffering the information so that the music plays OK even when you move it.

I'm agreeing with OliverStoned for the first time.  Old technology is not so bad. I'm a bit of a fan of cassette tapes as well! I have a Sony cassette player and it has played for years OK.