Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - CDs ?  MP3s?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCDs ? MP3s?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Which Format do you listen to most often?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
23 [36.51%]
16 [25.40%]
13 [20.63%]
6 [9.52%]
0 [0.00%]
5 [7.94%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
crimson87 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 09 2009 at 19:56

Legal downloads and CDS , I mean there is nothing like paying for a file.

 

Back to Top
moreitsythanyou View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: April 23 2006
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 11682
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 00:10
I rip my CDs to my computer plus downloads (some legal)
CDs are in my car though
<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]

Back to Top
Moogtron III View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 01:20

Mostly CD's.

I seldom listen to music on my PC. I have some legal downloads (MP3) and I still have a small collection of LP's, but CD's are still the best for me.
 
I was a bit disappointed by the sound quality of some (legal) downloads. I'm not a sound freak and I never was, but I could tell the difference between CD's and MP3's quite well. Still, it depends. Lately I downloaded a remaster of Steve Hackett's Defector and I was surprised at the good sound quality.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 01:44
^ Did you ever consider the possibility that when you can hear a difference between CD and MP3 it might be simply because the MP3 was ripped from a different source? For example, maybe you have a remastered CD but the MP3 you found on the internet (legal or illegal, doesn't matter for this consideration) was ripped from a different version of the album, or even from an analog copy through tape or vinyl?

I'm very sure that if you rip a CD to MP3 yourself, with a proper, modern codec and at least 256kbit, you can't hear the difference.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 01:48
Originally posted by crimson87 crimson87 wrote:

I mean there is nothing like paying for a file.

It really depends on how you want to see it. To me it's not the file I'm paying for, it's the music. For CDs you could also say that you're paying for a piece of plastic. Ok, you get the booklet too in most cases - but that contains information that you also find on the internet - on the band's website, at wikipedia etc.. I know that having the booklet is one of the reasons why people still prefer CDs, but to me the music is still the most important thing about an album. Artwork is important too, but when you buy an album as a download today you get the artwork too, so it's not really an issue anymore.


Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 08:07
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Altec Lansing? It's surely not a bad brand, but switching to a 2.1 system could be a huge improvement at little cost.

My personal recommendation:




With these speakers Walter will already feel the difference between high and low bitrate files. Listening to his collection will not be as pleasurable any more Big smile
Back to Top
St.Cleve Chronicle View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2008
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 11:29
I mostly listen to CD's, but there's something magical about vinyl. So, I voted for that.
Back to Top
Passionist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 14 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 1119
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 11:41

I saw this article in a hi-fi magazine once, where they had a variety of professionals testing different formats and set-ups. They were blindfolded, so they did not know which was which, and in the end, vinyl was the clear winner. I reckon it's because it does sound most like audio should, after all, it's completely analog, isn't it :D

anyway, I love hunting for old vinyls and then listening to them scratch on my player. Though nowadays old discs cost more than cds, easily. I can't find a copy of In The Court of the Crimson King for less then 30€ here. And they're all used of course.

Back to Top
Q6 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 18 2008
Location: York, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 13:00
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Q6 Q6 wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture"

This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), .Wink


mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference.



http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

It's not just me ... if you think you can hear a difference then I won't argue about that ... *personally* I think you're imagining it, but of course I'm not you, so I can't know.

Originally posted by Q6 Q6 wrote:



If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages)



Analog recording is far from being "infinite" ... especially when the result is pressed onto a piece of plastic with a metal stamp. Vinyl particles (clusters of molecules) are introducing effects very much like digital quantisation.

Originally posted by Q6 Q6 wrote:



Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player.

Sorry to be nerdy :)

That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs.

Q


I rip the files to a VBR format. This means that the encoder at all times is free to choose the appropriate bitrate from a range between 64kbit and 320kbit. This is also what Amazon MP3 uses (except for some albums which are in 256kbit constant bit rate).

BTW: The musical information that is ommitted in the MP3 file is not audible to most people. There are some conditions that break this mechanism, like for example when you're suffering from a loss of hearing on one side.



mmm I  was trying to add a little fact and personal knowledge/experience to your question. Unfortunately when the discussion starts talking about not believing people it stops being an informed discussion (no matter how many winks you add) Wink.

Then when analogue...infinity bit.... is converted to vinyl groove... and molecules blah blah..., your science information is entertaining, but belongs in a hitchiker's guide to the galaxy novel. We can all do that ... either a molecule is there or it isn't ! So everything is binary / digital!  Therefore analogue is a figment of our imaginations !! And I only have 2 ears so I must my 7.1 surround sound is only in stereo. Philosphy grade 1 science LOL It's quirky and humerous but of little real fact. Wink

Bored now.




Edited by Q6 - June 10 2009 at 13:04
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 13:34
^ My problem is that I'm a skilled and experienced musician ... and I've come to trust my ears. I don't hear a difference, you say you hear one. Between my own first hand experience and your claim, I choose my experience, especially since it is backed by the study I linked to above and many other comments that I've read - and heard - over the years. I've never ever met anybody who could prove that claim (that they could hear a difference between CD and high quality MP3), but there are plenty of independent studies that showed that people were not able to make the distinction.

And the whole vinyl thing has been discussed to death too ... the format is inherently inferior to CD. I love vinyls, I collect them and enjoy listening to them. There may even be some albums that I prefer to listen to on vinyl than on CD or MP3 ... but I'm sure that this has nothing to do with them being superior ... the mix could simply be different (vinyl is usually mastered differently than linear mediums).
Back to Top
Moogtron III View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 16:09
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ Did you ever consider the possibility that when you can hear a difference between CD and MP3 it might be simply because the MP3 was ripped from a different source? For example, maybe you have a remastered CD but the MP3 you found on the internet (legal or illegal, doesn't matter for this consideration) was ripped from a different version of the album, or even from an analog copy through tape or vinyl?

I'm very sure that if you rip a CD to MP3 yourself, with a proper, modern codec and at least 256kbit, you can't hear the difference.
 
Well, since the Hackett album that I mentioned I did considered that a sound quality equal to CD is possible, but I hadn't really thought of the quality loss through the process of MP3-ification. I just thought that the Hackett album was a sort of new generation MP3. You're the expert on this.
 
It is good news for the future, because I do believe that MP3 in the end is a better format, because of it being so compact. 
 
For the moment, though, it doesn't change a lot: at the moment I trust buying CD's more than I trust buying MP3 downloads. But the Hackett album that I mentioned did open my eyes (or ears in this case) that a very good sound quality is possible with MP3, and that in the future I will probably switch from CD to MP3 in all music.
 
Thanks for the information. BTW a bit off topic: I'm very happy with the Secunia software you suggested in another thread. It works very well.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 10 2009 at 16:47
^ You can still give emusic a try ... even if you only start with a download plan of 10-20 tracks per month, you can save quite some money. Over the years I downloaded 412 albums there, and I never ever encountered a badly ripped file. Rather the reverse ... some of their files are well beyond 256kbps on average. The new Peter Hammill album that I downloaded a few hours ago only has about 210kbps ... that's because there's not so much going on in the music frequency-wise (it's piano and vocals much of the time). Sounded amazing ... at least to my ears.Smile
Back to Top
Moogtron III View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 11 2009 at 04:07
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ You can still give emusic a try ... even if you only start with a download plan of 10-20 tracks per month, you can save quite some money. Over the years I downloaded 412 albums there, and I never ever encountered a badly ripped file. Rather the reverse ... some of their files are well beyond 256kbps on average. The new Peter Hammill album that I downloaded a few hours ago only has about 210kbps ... that's because there's not so much going on in the music frequency-wise (it's piano and vocals much of the time). Sounded amazing ... at least to my ears.Smile
 
Thanks for the advice. I did download some free tracks from E-Music from Anthony Phillips, but still I thought the sound quality was a bit poor. Maybe it has to do with the process on my pc, burning it on the cd. I'm not an expert on this. Maybe the problem lies with me, not with E-Music or any of the other providers.
 
E-Music mostly didn't have the albums that I wanted to have, but that may change in the future.
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 11 2009 at 04:22
I prefer Mp3 to CD's now, in fact my CD's are beginning to gather dust and I would still put vinyl before CD as a preference
Vinyl - all encompassing....wonderful
CD's - Too frigging small to read the covers. They always were and the plastic covers often snapped at the hinge
Mp3's - Make for fantastic digital library archives, of course the Cd and Vinyl contribute to the archives as wellas legal downloads but it is more exciting than CD IMOSmile
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.