My MP3 player broke!

Bob Greece wrote: oliverstoned wrote:  Tape beats CD I've become something of an expert at fixing old cassettes. If a cassette starts to play badly, I will crack open the case, take out the tape, unscrew the case of a blank cassette and put the tape into the new case. 99% of the time it fixes the problems. Has anyone-else done this? Or similar stuff?

Yes, it works.

Ah tubes are too...unpractical...yes yes class A amp's might be a bit big but atleast you dont need to replace parts

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Ah tubes are too...unpractical...yes yes class A amp's might be a bit big but atleast you dont need to replace parts

Tubes last at least 3 years of intensive use (6 hours per day every day !!)
90€ replacment every 3 years for one amp.
And when you ear what it does in the highs, you'd be ready to pay much more...
Except tube replacment, no other practical problem.

And a Jolida amp makes much more music than any Gryphon or class A amp and costs ONLY 1000 to 2000€, depending on the models.

Edited by oliverstoned

^ ok, so you haven't. If the copy really sounded different, the only reasonable explanation is that you made an analog copy - it is possible on old computers or newer ones which aren't configured properly. Digital copies are bit-exact identical to each other, so there cannot be any difference.

But you're right ... we did discuss that to great length and no agreement.

oliverstoned wrote: Compared to a good cd, MP3 is: -Harsh, edgy, rough.

That could mean anything of a variety of problems including distortions and artifacts, both of which are of course real.

-Thin

Again, not very specific, but I assume you mean frequencies missing? That's certainly true although I think "thin" rather implies bass missing, which isn't very common at all.

-Flat

If you mean treble missing, that's entirely true.

-Lacks of image (sound scene)

For any MP3 encoded by a modern codec (LAME, for preference) at any bitrate above 128kbps (I'm pretty sure), stereo compression is entirely lossless - i.e. there's no difference in the soundstage of MP3 and CD) - the only explanations for hearing differences in the stereo image are a) you've heard poorly coded MP3s, or b) the other artifacts that really do exist are affecting your perception. Although come to think of it, I suppose if there is a lot of treble on one channel and little on another, it could affect the imaging.

dynamic

Again, I can't see this happening in high bitrate modern encodings.

low, high

covered already

detail, precision, clarity

All the same thing really, and this is probably the biggest audible difference - to do with nearby frequencies to others, as well as possibly some harmonics, being removed.

goose wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Depends if you first convert the cd files into wave and then burns it on a cd there seem to be some loss of quality If you do that right, you're imagining it. The problem with that method is there's no way of verifying they're identical.

Im suspecting a loss in the conversion to wave and back to cd format again...most converters are not 100 percent perfect and if you do a advanced spectrum analysis on the two formats there will be certain things that have changed...nothing is 100 percent perfect but it should be pretty accurate and it does not make it a big difference to me.

goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Compared to a good cd, MP3 is: -Harsh, edgy, rough. That could mean anything of a variety of problems including distortions and artifacts, both of which are of course real. -Thin Again, not very specific, but I assume you mean frequencies missing? That's certainly true although I think "thin" rather implies bass missing, which isn't very common at all. -Flat If you mean treble missing, that's entirely true. -Lacks of image (sound scene) For any MP3 encoded by a modern codec (LAME, for preference) at any bitrate above 128kbps (I'm pretty sure), stereo compression is entirely lossless - i.e. there's no difference in the soundstage of MP3 and CD) - the only explanations for hearing differences in the stereo image are a) you've heard poorly coded MP3s, or b) the other artifacts that really do exist are affecting your perception. Although come to think of it, I suppose if there is a lot of treble on one channel and little on another, it could affect the imaging. dynamic Again, I can't see this happening in high bitrate modern encodings. low, high covered already detail, precision, clarity All the same thing really, and this is probably the biggest audible difference - to do with nearby frequencies to others, as well as possibly some harmonics, being removed.

Actually, all these adjectives are linked together:

When there's a lack of dynamic, there's also a lack of low and image.
I.E when you add a musical sub on a good system, there's a dramatic improvment on low/dynamic/image. (and also on highs BTW!).
All goes together actually.
"Thin" is an adjective which aplies well to digital versus analog. It's obvious when you switch from one to the other. It's a lack of sound matter. The digital sounds "ethereal" (in the pejorative way) compared to analog. The digital sound is like a skeleton.
Lacks the flesh.
The better the CD player, the more matter you'll have, the more analog it'll sound.
And the more pleasure you'll have!!



Edited by oliverstoned

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Certainly look at analysis on a 192kbps file and the original file from the cd and im sure you will be surprised how much "stuff" is cut away.

The point is that the human ear can't hear most of that which is removed by the mp3 algorithm. So while it's true that you can hear a difference, it's not like only 10% of the music is left after the compression.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: And certainly although i cant pin point exactly what is lacking in the mp3 sound image its like playing a wrongly tuned guitar...i cant really tell WHAT is exactly wrong but i certainly can easily hear that it is tuned very wrong.

Now that's objectively wrong. mp3 does many things, but it doesn't change the tuning ... not in the slightest.

^ make that "waveform" ... of course the compression changes that. What a pity that you generally refuse the idea of listening tests. These clearly show that for high bitrates it becomes really difficult to distinguish the CD from the compressed file. EVEN on high end equipment.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Now that's objectively wrong. mp3 does many things, but it doesn't change the tuning ... not in the slightest.

Well... it doesn't change any frequencies, but it could possibly alter the perceived pitch because of some frequencies being removed as well as other artifacts. It's worth remembering that pitch can be affected by things other than frequency.

oliverstoned wrote: I've made the test, and that's why i gave more than 100 computer burned records to a non-audiophile friend...

Then I'm afraid there's a problem with your CD player or your computer - probably over 99 in 100 computers aren't correctly set up to make perfect copies of CDs. I think there are only a handful programs available for PC (EAC, Plextools and one or two others) that make bit perfect copies. No software that comes with CD writers will do this, unless you buy a Plextor (and I wouldn't advise it, because they're much more expensive than others that are just as good).