My MP3 player broke!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17988
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 17:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: My MP3 player broke!
Posted By: Bob Greece
Subject: My MP3 player broke!
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 03:52
|
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
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.Replies:
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 04:24
|
Be happy for it! Listening to mp3 is painful for your ears and damages your brain you know... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 04:48
Don't CD players do the same? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Lindsay Lohan wrote:Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 04:54
DONT YOU HEAR THE TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY BETWEEN MP3 AND CD'S ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:01
Yes, but it depends. You'd be amazed what big Cd can do. Something else than MP3. |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:07
|
Exactly how big is a big CD? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:08
I never noticed the difference. Maybe I should get my ears checked? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:13
YES! playback the same cd in 192kbps mp3 and then listen to it on cd...if ye dont spot the difference you must be quite deaf! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:25
You have probably very poor headphones. The difference is also unnoticeable on a computer. |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:31
|
I use speakers (2 small speakers and a sub woofer). They're not brilliant of course but it's all I can afford and they're good enough for me. What is this difference that people talk about? What sort of sounds go missing on an mp3 that you would normally get on a CD? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:36
|
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... |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:46
|
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:51
Here's how you can perform a listening test:
But make it 192bps mp3 ... at 128kbps the difference is easily recognizable. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 05:56
even at 320kbps you should still notice the difference quite easy  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:06
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... |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:11
You're right. Tape beats CD 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:13
|
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... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:18
|
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? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:21
|
Antileon Signature Mono
Look at that beauty...and yes you dont need to have any additonal heating in a room if ye got two of these babies ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:26
|
My CD:
Drive Sonic frontiers SFT-1 
Converter Goldmund Mimesis 14 
Nordost Digital cable 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:26
Yes, it works. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:30
Tubes heat even more! (and two is better, one per channel in the highs, plus one or two solid state in the low) (Kora galaxy-french gear-) 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:35
|
Ah tubes are too...unpractical...yes yes class A amp's might be a bit big but atleast you dont need to replace parts ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:35
How did you verify that the computer made an exact copy? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:42
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. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 06:43
No way, we have already discussed it. See the old thread. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:15
|
^ ok, so you haven't. But you're right ... we did discuss that to great length and no agreement. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:19
|
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 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:20
That could mean anything of a variety of problems including distortions and artifacts, both of which are of course real.
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.
If you mean treble missing, that's entirely true.
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.
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:22
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:41
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 07:46
|
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. 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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 08:07
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!! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 10:08
|
--->Bob
Buy the smallest Nad cd player. It makes music. --->Lindsay Here are my dream solid state amps (for low in a bi-amp set up): Goldmund Mimesis 9.4 The sound aesthetic of this brand is fantastic: extremely neutral, virtual infinite bandwidth, striking dynamic, incredible transparency... 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 10:22
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.
Now that's objectively wrong. mp3 does many things, but it doesn't change the tuning ... not in the slightest. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 10:48
You've found a new one to bother, bad boy! Your so-called 10% ruins 100% of the music. What Lindsay wanted to say IMO, is that the instruments "tones" are ruined by digital, and even more MP3. I'm not sure it's the good word, in french we say "timbre". |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 10:54
|
^ 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. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 11:00
|
We already agree that the higher the compression, the worst the sound. That's good.
But we disagree on the fact that a computer burned CD is very bad compared to an original, whereas a CD burned on a good audiophile burner is identical and may even be slightly better than the original, thanks to the converter used in the burner. I've made the test, and that's why i gave more than 100 computer burned records to a non-audiophile friend... |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 11:12
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.
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). |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 15:13
|
--->Goose
"Then I'm afraid there's a problem with your CD player or your computer" All the computer-burned cds i've listen to, from various burners, using different softwares, on various Cd brands ("Mitsui Pro studio gold" are the best BTW, but unfortuntly not compatible with audiophile burners), had all in common a great harshness, and a big loss on all hifi criterias and of course musicality, compared to originals. And you don't need to have a onre billion dollar system or golden ears to hear that. You can ear clearly hear the huge difference on any little -but well optimized- musical system. I've maybe not tried your software, but i remain septikal. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 15:27
|
CDex and the WMP 9+ do that without any problems, provided that they're configured properly. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 16:36
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 26 2006 at 16:44
I have a friend who reckons he hear a clear difference in favour of CDs, much better than me (does't that remind you of the noise created arguing what was better CDs or vinyl). MP3 work fine in non-perfect conditions - e.g. the car player (hey with the amount of background noise, even cassettes sound good in most cars) , walking the dog and the Walkman etc. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:25
Tape sounds far better than CD, so MP3 easily! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:29
|
^ I'm so glad that the aera of tapes is over ... limited frequency range, dropouts, tape decks running slightly too slow or too fast, tapes getting damaged by magnetic fields, moisture, dust, heat (sun) etc. etc. Tape sounds awful compared to CD. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:45
Oh no  Of course, i'm not alluding to the nasty tape player you use in your kitchen...
Knows that these little gems go far further than any CD players. 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:47
|
^ hideous pictures of legacy equipment won#t change my opinion. ;-)
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:50
|
^ let's continue this vital question in a separate thread: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18050&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18050& amp;PN=1&TPN=1
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:55
|
I was talking to a friend of mine who is a hi-fi enthusiast. The bottom line is money. For the amount of money that most of us have to spend, surely a CD player is going to sound better than a tape player. Particularly on the 30 Euro speakers I have. OliverStoned - I would like to ask you how much money you spend on all your equipment but it's a personal question and of course there's no need to answer. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 05:57
|
^ tape has certain limitations which cannot be overcome just by using more expensive equipment. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:00
... chewed up tapes, tape stretch, tapes so tight that the reels don't turn .... ... but one great thing about tapes is that I have tapes from the eighties and you can still buy tape players cheap in the shops. I have LPs from the eighties but I can't find anywhere to buy a cheap record player. Also, you can't play LPs on the move like you can with tapes. I have a book about American cars from the 60's and I was amazed to read that some of them had LP players inside. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:03
|
I tell you, it goes faster, when you use such fantastic -and beautiful- Nakamichi tapedecks- That's all.
-->Bob Buy a Cd player, any model from the following brand: -Nad, Rotel, Naim, Rega, Creek, Arcam... I bought virtually all my equipment on occasion, some of my devices are 10 years old models (like my CD) so it's half price. For example, my digital set up costed (with cable) about 6000€ new. I paid it 3000€. (I must precise that CD is the most expensive element, along with preamp) My whole sytem costed me about 8000€. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:17
|
My Harman Kardon system (amp, cd) with Elac speakers cost me not more than 800 EUR ... and I doubt that your system sounds x10 better. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:18
|
You can even not compare it.
It's day and night... |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:21
|
I paid 30 Euros for my speakers and 40 Euros for the CD player. So the whole system cost 70 Euros. That means that Mike's system should be 10x better and Oliver's 100x better. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:21
|
Then let me continue to live in the night. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:22
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
And I'm sure that there's also a system for 80.000 EUR, and the owner is convinced that it is much superior even than Oliver's system.Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:23
If Mike lives in the night, where do I live? Probably under a rock with some slimy slugs. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:30
|
Actually, price means NOTHING.
Many people owns 100.000 dollars system as musical as a train station. On another hand, i know people who own incredible systems. The "worst" is a (very rich) man who owns a very big system, including a 150.000 dollars Rockport technology turntable and a Teac Esoteric 150.000 dollars digital set up (composed of 5 boxes, including cables). I can advice you a whole musical system for 1000 €. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6876&KW=budget - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6876&K W=budget |
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:35
|
Certainly it did not mean that the music goes out of tune but what i meant is that the difference between cd and mp3 is like playing a tuned and a untuned guitar...the difference really is that big ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:35
|
How can you be so sure about all these things when you don't even know how a computer/cd-rom works? I mean, can't you admit that there is a small chance that I can configure my computer/cd-rom/soundcard to sound as good as a good CD-player? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:36
In the night of theories and mathematical formulas, opposed to the "day" of music, emotion and pleasure. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:40
Because we have already discussed it. A good cd player is a device carefully designed on all criterias (each component has been tested for being musical, power alimentation is very important, converter is crucial, as analog output stage), that's it which makes a musical device. All issues neglicted on a computer, cause it's not its function. And don't dream, you'll not compensate it with your damn software. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:43
That's an offensive and hurtful comment, Oliver. You can post any opinion ... but don't say that I can't appreciate music as well as you can. I enjoy music as much as you do. And I rarely ever think about theories and formulas while I'm listening to music, and neither do any other people who just happen to be experts in the computational/electronical science and therefore understand all these devices a little better than you do (you've said that yourself many times). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:03
|
Don't deform my words, please.
I've never said that you can't enjoy music. The fact is that you rely on theories while i rely on a pragmatic aproach based on listening. Nothing to do with the fact to enjoy music or not. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:37
|
My theories are proven - your pragmatic approach can only be proven by yourself. That's the difference. Please don't deform my words either - don't change "fact" into "theory". A fact is proven, a theory not. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:41
|
Your theories says that transistor amps work better than tube, that digital is more accurate than analog...etc.
All bright theories! One more time, i didn't wanted to be offensive...i was just comparing our respective approachs, while you think i was judging your musical sensitiveness, which is not the case at all. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:48
|
Yes, that's a proven fact. That doesn't mean that an transistor amp will always sound better than a tube amp. You know that I even said myself that I in some situation prefer the sound of a tube amp. But if you examine the waveforms you can easily see that a tube amp distorts the signal. No denying, no excuses.
I never said that. Digital will always be less accurate than a good analog system. But the human ear is - in a way - digital itself. The ear only contains so many cells which convert the acoustical energy into nerve impulses. And these nerve impulses are then simplified by the brain. To cut a long story short: If even audiophiles can't tell the sources apart in listening tests, then the whole matter is just not worth talking about.
I took no offense, and I hope you didn't either. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:58
|
Don't take offense, but:
"But the human ear is - in a way - digital itself. The ear only contains so many cells which convert the acoustical energy into nerve impulses. And these nerve impulses are then simplified by the brain. To cut a long story short: If even audiophiles can't tell the sources apart in listening tests, then the whole matter is just not worth talking about." 
If it was really the case, digital would not involve ear pain. Don't underestimate human ear/brain. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 08:04
|
Don't overestimate it either. Listening Tests are the ultimate solution. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 08:06
|
OliverStoned - If it was really the case, digital would not involve ear pain. Don't underestimate human ear/brain. I get earache when listening to tapes in the car or when using headphones. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 08:13
|
Bob-->
-I don't talk about crappy players. Analog is much more softer than digital, that's an empiric fact. -Little earphones are very bad for your ears as it's very close to the eardrum. Mike--> i do it virtually every day by switching from one source to another. And the differences stay the same. |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 05:19
|
I got an email today from the manufacturers of the MP3 player and they are sending me a replacement. So now I will reveal that my MP3 player was made by Creative and I'd like to thank them openly for their good customer service. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 05:36
|
How do you know that the "softer" sound is more authentic?
Not true. They are closer, but also much less powerful.
Then why do most audiophiles consistently refuse to do listening tests? They keep saying "I can easily hear the difference", but refuse to prove it. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:49
|
You're in good shape today!!
Ready to discuss for the Xth time the same things. But not me. Stay with your mathematical formulas, your books on audio and your MP3 player and be happy with that. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:59
|
^ agreed - let's not go there. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 11:16
| phew |