| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
oliverstoned 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
 Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:36 |
|
"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!
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:35 |
Oliver, please keep musical tastes out of this. What does Metal have to do with sound quality? I can point you to two excellent bands:
- Opeth
- Porcupine Tree
They still release their music on vinyl. Really heavy ones (speaking of the weight of the discs).
Maybe you can listen to those without prejudice, although I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:33 |
Sure, but telephones are not about audio quality. 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.
BTW: Needless to say that a 128kbps mp3 file sounds MUCH MUCH better.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:29 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
Yes, does it surprise you? |
It should, as a mobile phone line is also digital and usually uses much less bandwidth than an internet phone line.
Just confess, oliver - you're not a technician but yet you sometimes try to make technical statements, and sometimes that backfires on you. |
Don't try to confuse all!
Both mobile phones and VOIP are both digital and both crap (i suppose that all VOIP are not the same, compression may varies and so quality).
But the fact is that if you compare the one or the other to the old phone, listen to some waiting music calling a company like i do at work, and you'll realize that there's an atrocious saturation. BTW, i'm not alone to notice that, cause some of my (non-audiophiles)work colleagues complains about the bad sound quality, compared to the old classic phone.
"Ok, insult my musical taste as much as you like. It only strengthens my position.Smile."
Keep on insulting and polluting this website devoted to progressive music and not regressive "trash" music for teenagers.
Edited by oliverstoned - April 22 2006 at 14:34
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:14 |
oliverstoned wrote:
The details are the following: ANY walkman beats ANY mp3 player.
About the tests i've made, i recall about a "Creative", but not the model or something (there's a psychological mechanism which tends to occult bad memories  ).
|
Do you even know what a bitrate is? Why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
oliverstoned wrote:
Anyway, to listen to some noise, MP3 is highly sufficient in your case.
Enjoy!
|
Ok, insult my musical taste as much as you like. It only strengthens my position. 
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 14:12 |
oliverstoned wrote:
Yes, does it surprise you? |
It should, as a mobile phone line is also digital and usually uses much less bandwidth than an internet phone line.
Just confess, oliver - you're not a technician but yet you sometimes try to make technical statements, and sometimes that backfires on you.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:54 |
|
Yes, does it surprise you?
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:44 |
oliverstoned wrote:
It's like the difference between analog old phone and
mobile or worst: "voice-on-IP" phone sound.
When there's some waiting music through the "IP phone", sound is more distorded than with 1900 wax records...What a progress!!
Another obvious proof of numeric's inferiority...
|
Your VOIP actually sounds worse than a standard phoneline?! Something has gone very wrong if it has.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:30 |
Its getting bitchy in here.
DIGITAL RULES!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 13:04 |
The details are the following: ANY walkman beats ANY mp3 player.
About the tests i've made, i recall about a "Creative", but not the model or something (there's a psychological mechanism which tends to occult bad memories ).
It's like the difference between analog old phone and
mobile or worst: "voice-on-IP" phone sound.
When there's some waiting music through the "IP phone", sound is more distorded than with 1900 wax records...What a progress!!
Another obvious proof of numeric's inferiority...
To come back to your poll, i voted 2, cause it was the only possible answer to this stupid (and not funny) question.
I totally agree with you that you can enjoy music through the worst equipment, like on MP3. Moreover, that's what most people do, so do it. Anyway, to listen to some noise, MP3 is highly sufficient in your case.
Enjoy!
Edited by oliverstoned - April 22 2006 at 13:15
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:32 |
Ok, so you don't want to give me more detail. 
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:30 |
|
Because this Walkman system featuring a battery is not polluted by something else. Anyway, it's very basic, but it's enough to hear the monstruous difference between numeric (bad numeric moreover, cause compressed) and a very basic Sony Cassette player, almost a toy.
Of course, i would not compared this Walkman (45€) to a big digital set up!
Edited by oliverstoned - April 22 2006 at 11:34
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:26 |
oliverstoned wrote:
As i always says, a good system doesn't needs to be expensive to work. |
Isn't it one of the audiophile principles that when even the smallest element in the "chain" is inferior, it all sounds like crap? How can someone then listen to a small system without power line filters and still enjoy it?
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:25 |
oliverstoned wrote:
And about analog's superiority, i told you recently about the tests i made, using a cheap (30€!)-but musical- Sennheiser px100H headphones, comparing a cheap Sony Cassette Walkman and MP3 players and how (not surprisingly)Walkman easily win.
|
Which mp3 player did you use, and which bitrate ... and was the file ripped from the CD professionally?
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 22 2006 at 11:27
|
|
|
|
GoldenSpiral
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:23 |
|
The money would be much better spent on CDs to enjoy on my cheap system.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:16 |
Empathy wrote:
When are you two gonna kiss and make up? 
I firmly believe there IS a common ground.
I personally can't stand what 128kbps encoding does to high
frequencies, but I'm sure many, many people would never be able to tell
the difference.
I also think that the majority of "pre-fab" all-in-one stereo systems
that are sold are designed to over-hype frequencies to the point where
the _trained_ear_ can hear the differences... but again, the vast
majority of people can't tell the difference.
However, I think that gold-plated speaker cables, power filtering,
etc... all the things you'll find in the so-called "audiophile" systems
are marketing drivel, and do nothing other than part you with your
well-earned cash for a benefit that's purely subconscious.
|
You think, but you haven't tried.
You rely on theories, while i rely on experience.
Edited by oliverstoned - April 22 2006 at 11:16
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 11:09 |
|
As i always says, a good system doesn't needs to be expensive to work.
And about analog's superiority, i told you recently about the tests i made, using a cheap (30€!)-but musical- Sennheiser px100H headphones, comparing a cheap Sony Cassette Walkman and MP3 players and how (not surprisingly)Walkman easily win.
It shows that even on the more cheap ad basic equipment,
analog wins. The difference is obvious, don't need gold ears. Ther's one with hurts the eardrums, the other not.
Edited by oliverstoned - April 22 2006 at 11:11
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 09:52 |
|
option 2
|
|
|
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
Posted: April 22 2006 at 09:48 |
put it this way....my first car was an old 1949 morris minor. i had a year's happy motoring in this car, a real buzz, my first car, until i outgrew it and wanted something a bit more...well , racey, and over the years i've had many cars of variable luxury but always enjoyed driving them. now i wouldn't dream of going back to the bumpy, slow old morris minor. i listened to my first rock and prog music from 1966 on an old pam mono record player with an autochanger (which i still use to play singles on) and i was perfectly happy with that, i listened to "led zeppelin", "sgt.pepper" and "tommy" on that for the first time (i visited a friend who had a stereo radiogram-unbelievable sound!) and i was absolutely thrilled. i upgraded to a stereo music centre, about 12 watts per channel, and it was a revelation. these days my equipment is somewhat more sophisticated but i always think it could be improved, my listening experienced is enhanced but i never recaptured the buzz i got from that old pam record player again, so i voted "You can enjoy music perfectly fine on a cheap system" ...and so you can! 
|
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21196
|
Posted: April 21 2006 at 20:15 |
Live music ... well, the atmosphere is great but the sound can be REALLY crappy. In most venues the acoustic situation is far from perfect, and depending on where you are in the hall/room it can be dreadful or decent.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The ultimate audiophile poll
