The Future Of The Record Shop?

[ans]

I'd tend to agree. Often, the people washing their hands of mp3 and calling it a vastly inferior quality sound have only actually listened to a 128k CBR rip with a Xing codec or something equally as horrible. Even more often, those who protest that they can definitely hear a massive difference even with a Lame v0 encode, as Slim points out, fail blind tests on regular occasions.

 

I listen to a lot of music, the vast (vast) majority of it is in a lossy format and I'm happy with that. Then again, it's all Scandanavian screaming church burning baby raping Satanists as Slim is undoubtedly going to point out so there's no tune to it anyway.

[Phildo]

I'd tend to agree. Often, the people washing their hands of mp3 and calling it a vastly inferior quality sound have only actually listened to a 128k CBR rip with a Xing codec or something equally as horrible. Even more often, those who protest that they can definitely hear a massive difference even with a Lame v0 encode, as Slim points out, fail blind tests on regular occasions.

I'd be willing to try a blind test, and I'd wager that I'd hear the difference - but then I do spend a lot of my time listening to audio very analytically.

 

The weird thing about current consumer audio trends is that they are retrogressive in terms of fidelity while at the other (recording studio) end of the spectrum, sample and bit-rates are climbing ever higher. It's not unusual these days for recording studios to run systems at 32 Bit/192K sample rates, giving a near-as-damnit infinite frequency response (let's face it - there's absolutely no speakers extant capable of playing back 86KHz and no human ears capable of hearing it if they could!).

 

Myself, I tend to stick to 16 Bit @ 44,1K, as that's the absolute highest quality most consumers will ever use (standard CD), and it saves an awful lot of memory. It's just a bit galling that, while some people take care about encoding their MP3s, most people will end up listening to it on a format which is just a step up from tin cans and string in terms of reproductive quality.

 

Of course, there's longevity to consider - long after all of your MP3s have been superseded and rendered unplayable by new formats and ever-more draconian DRM software, long after the aluminium compounds in my CDs have oxidised and the little plastic teeth all fallen out of the trays, my lovely vinyl will still be playable.

 

So Hah!

[loaf]

so as an ipod wanker you are for the degradation of sound quality, i dont care what you say the word "compression( applies to all codecs, even the "lossless" ones compress so you lose information pure and simple

 

No, you clearly have no understanding of how this works. You dont lose anything in lossless compression. Lossless compression is used all the time, zip files are lossless compression for example, do you think they'd be used if every time you opened the file you lost a little bit of it? A decompressed audio stream from lossless compression is identical to the original.

Perhaps it's the old signal-compression-getting-confused-with-data-compression chestnut?

 

The physical properties of vinyl are such that the dynamic range capabilities change as the stylus moves further into the centre of the the disc. Give me wax cylinders any day...

 

That's all I'm contributing to this thread..

[Declan]

Christ this has turned into the worst thread ever. I'm tempted to delete it.

[Slim]

I'd be willing to try a blind test, and I'd wager that I'd hear the difference - but then I do spend a lot of my time listening to audio very analytically.

 

Pretty easy to set one up, rip a cd to v0 lame then listen to it along side the original, randomise the playlist and write down the order you think they played.

 

The weird thing about current consumer audio trends is that they are retrogressive in terms of fidelity while at the other (recording studio) end of the spectrum, sample and bit-rates are climbing ever higher. It's not unusual these days for recording studios to run systems at 32 Bit/192K sample rates, giving a near-as-damnit infinite frequency response (let's face it - there's absolutely no speakers extant capable of playing back 86KHz and no human ears capable of hearing it if they could!).

 

I agree that people listen on all kinds of tat, that's not really a recent thing though is it? Remeber some of the gadgets like single speaker cassete decks that used to exist? Those really bad 'all in one' record and tape player things, urgh.

 

Compare that to BD which is 24-bit/192 kHz for over six channels, now I know this is mostly for movie audio not music, but it's definately an improvement over CD.

 

Myself, I tend to stick to 16 Bit @ 44,1K, as that's the absolute highest quality most consumers will ever use (standard CD), and it saves an awful lot of memory. It's just a bit galling that, while some people take care about encoding their MP3s, most people will end up listening to it on a format which is just a step up from tin cans and string in terms of reproductive quality.

 

Hmm that threw me a bit, are you talking about mastering the music you make rather than encoding cd's you buy?

 

Of course, there's longevity to consider - long after all of your MP3s have been superseded and rendered unplayable by new formats and ever-more draconian DRM software, long after the aluminium compounds in my CDs have oxidised and the little plastic teeth all fallen out of the trays, my lovely vinyl will still be playable.

So Hah!

 

Well not quite

 

Your vinyl will degrade every time you play it, both through damage and simply wear of the needle. Vinyls bloody soft, and it does lose information quite rapidly. Also, because it's analog, it cannot be copied without loss. Anything digital can of course be played and duplicated entirely without loss, so mp3 and CD are both far more future proof than vinyl.

[Onchanguy]

Back to the topic.

 

I don't buy very much music in shops here for one simple reason - price.

 

Two random examples of CDs I bought are Bruce Springsteen - Live In Dublin and Back Door Slam - Roll Away.

 

HMV had Springsteen's double CD and DVD package for £18.95. Blah had it online for £8.95.

 

HMV had BDS for £16.95. HMV online (their own website) had it for £8.95.

 

A saving of £18.00 on two CDs !!!!! That's two extra CDs I can afford by buying online.

 

I can live with waiting a few days for the CDs to arrive in the post for that sort of saving. As I've bought 100 CDs so far this year that's one heck of a saving already this year.

 

Check out the websites http://www.find-cd.co.uk/ and http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/ for the best prices. The websites are like insurance brokers. They search t'internet for the cheapest prices and give you a link to the relevant website.

 

Don't use Select Cheaper but the rest of the online shops (Play, Blah, DVD.Co.UK, HMV, 101CD, Sendit) are great. The websites tell you whether the item is in stock and most do not debit your credit card until despatch. CD-Wow is good but they debit your credit card immediately so if you pre-order they have your money until despatch and they are sometimes rather slow in getting new releases.

 

With regard to the side topic of mp3/iPod on this thread. I have an iPod which I use to while away the hours spent on the bus going to and from work and whilst going for a walk at lunchtime and wouldn't be without it. The sound quality of an mp3 is obviously not as good as a CD on my stereo but it is good enough for listening to over the sound of a bus engine and people shouting utter bullsh1t into their mobile phones. I thought mobile phone technology had improved so people did not need to shout anymore. Obviously not..... It's not as if their conversations are important or have any substance to them. All complete bullsh1t about who's sh@gging who or mindless drivel about what is happening on Big Brother..... Sorry, started to sound like Rick Wakeman in Grumpy Old Men mode there !!!!!