http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with the supposed 'sterility' of CD --
that's just Harry on his hobbyhorse, and I guess he's utterly forgotten
the Sony Walkman -- it's *all*
about being *able* to have music all the time. And of course we also
have to note the introduction of Muzak to public spaces...dating
back the 50's perhaps? Music that isn't *meant* to be listened to
attentively.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

In article ,
(David E. Bath) wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to
everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step.

The great John Philip Sousa may have had it right even earlier. He
stated that the earliest recordings would be the death of concert music
as audiences would get lazy over time.

I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.

Same here.

David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.

Oh, come on. It started not long after the Victrola replaced the piano
in the parlor. That's when background music became possible, and it's
been with us ever since. To ascribe this phenomenon to digital is just
trolling.

bob

On 29 Dec 2005 21:36:27 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your
suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling
it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to
everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I
think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.


There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
seem to negatively affect home listening? In fact, one can argue that they
actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
listening space that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.

But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

--
stealthaxe

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 21:36:27 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:


In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

"John Sunier" wrote in message
...

http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.


However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

I agree completely with your sentiments, but am afraid that your
suggested
actions amount to ****ing into the wind.

Until and unless the media (both specialized and general) start telling
it
like it is to those unused to high fidelity in their music reproduction,
instead of using misleading terms such as "cd-quality" applied to
everything
short of mp3's recorded onto cassette, we will lose the battle.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole "wallpaper" thing may have
started with the introduction of CD itself, along with the sterility that
the first decade of CD reproduction generally created. Seems to me that
coincided with the loss of interest in "just sitting and listening". I
know, I know, there are lots of other social factors at work. But I
think
we dropped our guard and started losing this battle in the eighties.

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.


There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
seem to negatively affect home listening? In fact, one can argue that they
actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
listening space that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.

But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?

On second thought it started even earlier with the introduction of
changer devices such as the 45 changers and then the LP changers. It's
that capability that allowed one to queue up a lot of music and then
let it run as background entertainment. CD changers then continued
that capability. I don't think it becomes background until one can set
it up and forget about it for a significant time period.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

firswt, who says you have use an ipod to play mp3s?


second, IIRC Stereophile favorably reviewed the ipod's sound quality
a little while back.

fogdog wrote:

Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.

Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob

Harry Lavo wrote:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message

snip?

I think it started much earlier with 8-track and then cassette. The
portability was worth more to people than the audio quality. Walkmans
then accelerated the trend. Portable CD players were the next step.
MP3 is just the latest step. I use MP3 for the portability feature
when I travel, but never for home use.


You forgot the even more miserable 4-track cartridge that preceded the
8-track. Horrible.

There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
seem to negatively affect home listening?

Primarily, I think, because there were no rapid cultural changes
associated with the majority of the music listeners contemporaneous to
these technological changes. They (we) just had more options available
to do what we were already doing, listening to music. There also was a
very limited amount of competing entertainment, especially video based,
in comparison to the last couple of decades.

In fact, one can argue that they
actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
listening space that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.

Well, while the quality of the "reproduction" is certainly not as good
in the car, or the Walkman, the quality of the "music" is unchanged. I
think this just highlights that enjoyment of the music does not
correlate well with the quality of the reproduction. Certainly not
outside of the audiophile realm - a realm that is clearly shrinking IME.

But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background".

Well Harry, I don't think you can tie the change to "digital". I, for
one, listen more with digital, simply because I now can. Traveling 25
days a month is *not* conducive to vinylphilia...

As to background music, you seem to presuppose that this is necessarily
a "bad" thing. It's not what *we* do, but it still supports the music
industry, and gives artists a chance to make a living. With the
competing visual media (HT, cable, DVD, etc.) these days, I don't think
there will be many, if any, new generations of audiophiles.

This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural?

Yes, IMO. The cultural adaptation both to new technologies, and to new
forms of entertainment.

Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?

I would say absolutely not, relative to digital being your culprit. Do
you really believe that if we still *only* had vinyl for music, and
still had DVD's, video games, etc., etc., for visual entertainment, that
*more* people would be listening seriously to music than do so now?
Given that A.D.D. seems almost to be a merit badge in American society
today, that seems incredibly unlikely to me.

Keith Hughes

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
be?

Harry Lavo wrote:

There is one thing, though, David, that I can't reconcile with your post or
many of the others that have responded....granted that portability and
laziness have been possible factors from Sousa's lamented Gramophone through
8-trak on up to the Cassette, which you rightfully mention, why did they not
seem to negatively affect home listening? In fact, one can argue that they
actually helped home listening...certainly the Gramaphone. And the 8-trak
and cassette carried it mostly into the car, which in a way is a dedi ated
listening space

Yeah, maybe when you're parked.

that supplements home listening. Nor do I believe the
walkman was ever seen as any real competition to a good stereo.

But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?

Or could you just be making this stuff up? I see no reason to believe
that people suddenly stopped listening seriously to recorded music
20-odd years ago. All I see is a guy who wants to pick the same old
digital/analog fight yet again. Your sociology is as bad as your
psychoacoustics, Harry. Please give it up.

bob

On 31 Dec 2005 16:45:55 GMT, fogdog wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.

Yes, pretty obviously, given my post.............................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 31 Dec 2005 16:41:46 GMT, stealthaxe
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

Actually, I'm very hard pushed to differentiate it from an original CD
on my main music rig, and that seems to be a common consensus.

What makes you think that it *should* sound inferior?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Harry Lavo wrote:

But since digital came in, even without digital portability, people changed
their habits (often at home) and stopped "listening" to music and started
using it as "background". This is mostly true of pop and rock, surely, but
I think even jazz and classical has suffered. Is it all cultural? Or could
there be a subtle cause and effect?


You have to be joking, Mr. Lavo. I have three kids, and they all listen
to music at least 4 hours a day. No, not on vinyl, but on iPods. If
anything, the advent of the portable MP3 players makes it much easier
for younger people to "listen" to music, anytime, any place. Each of my
kids has a music library that is easily an order of magnitude larger in
size than what I had when I was at their age. And they do not use that
library as only background music, but every bit as attentively as when I
listened to my vinyl when I was at their age. You go to any college in
the US, and you see the same phenomenon: young people with sizable music
collections and actively listening to them. You think iPods were sold
mostly to people who use it as background music only?

bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

Isn't it called the background music already? What did your kids do?
Nothing but just music? :-)

fogdog wrote:
bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

But they do play Apple Lossless.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:


However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.


"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

Because it's an MP3 you atuomatically assume its totally inferior. Is
that ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s can
sound good?

Just like all audio, there's good and bad in everything. Some people are
happy with their walmart $40 CD player, and others need the Benchmark
DAC coupled with some exotic transport. Hoards of people own a technics
turntable, but the "real" audiophiles own a Rega, or Linn, or whatnot.

It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney
Spears crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s
available over the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try
and give a listen to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer.
MP3 can sound very very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy
codecs which arguably do a very good job of "preserving" the highest
quality audio, like OGG and Apple's AAC.

CD

On 1 Jan 2006 19:28:10 GMT, fogdog wrote:

bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)

BTW, Apple has its own lossless encoder.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Where can you get the Brittney Spears' 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or
Fraunhoffer. I have been looking for these for a long time. Maybe they are
not available here in Canada.


"Codifus" wrote in message
...
stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:
However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.


"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.

Because it's an MP3 you atuomatically assume its totally inferior. Is that
ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s can sound
good?

Just like all audio, there's good and bad in everything. Some people are
happy with their walmart $40 CD player, and others need the Benchmark DAC
coupled with some exotic transport. Hoards of people own a technics
turntable, but the "real" audiophiles own a Rega, or Linn, or whatnot.

It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney Spears
crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s available over
the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try and give a listen
to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer. MP3 can sound very
very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy codecs which arguably do
a very good job of "preserving" the highest quality audio, like OGG and
Apple's AAC.

CD

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Jan 2006 19:28:10 GMT, fogdog wrote:

bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)

LOL
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)

BTW, Apple has its own lossless encoder.

In article ,
Jenn writes:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Jan 2006 19:28:10 GMT, fogdog wrote:

bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)

LOL
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)

I'm going through the same experimentation with encoders and encoding
rates myself. So far I'm quite happy with the LAME encoder set for VBR
standard. VBR (variable bit rate) encoding is superior to any fixed
rate that I've tried so far. I've been unable to tell any difference
between the original WAV file and the MP3 via headphones on my
computer. 128 Kbps fixed is noticeably different from the WAV in the
same setup. The resulting VBR files are about 20-25% larger than the
128 Kbps files.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

Jenn wrote:
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)

It's hard to imagine filling a 30- or 60-gig iPod with 128kbps content.
You'll be ripping disks for a year! (And how many minutes of class will
you waste scrolling through all of it to find what you're looking for?)


I usually recommend ripping at 192 kbps as a good compromise between
resolution and file size. Of course, that won't work if youreally need
to cram 400 CDs onto a 30-gig drive. In which case, I have any even
better solution: You need TWO iPods--one for the class, and one for
you!

bob

Bob McDonald wrote:
Where can you get the Brittney Spears' 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or
Fraunhoffer. I have been looking for these for a long time. Maybe they are
not available here in Canada.


"Codifus" wrote in message
...

stealthaxe wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My 60GB
iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no loss of
quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I personally
cannot distinguish from the original.


"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the iPod
rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an upgrade @
home.


Because it's an MP3 you atuomatically assume its totally inferior. Is that
ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s can sound
good?

Just like all audio, there's good and bad in everything. Some people are
happy with their walmart $40 CD player, and others need the Benchmark DAC
coupled with some exotic transport. Hoards of people own a technics
turntable, but the "real" audiophiles own a Rega, or Linn, or whatnot.

It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney Spears
crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s available over
the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try and give a listen
to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer. MP3 can sound very
very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy codecs which arguably do
a very good job of "preserving" the highest quality audio, like OGG and
Apple's AAC.

CD


You can make it yourself. Get the CD, rip the wavs to computer and use
LAME to make some very nice 320 kbps MP3s. Of course, why you want to do
that for a Britney CD is another matter for discussion

CD

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My
60GB iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no
loss of quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I
personally cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the
iPod rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an
upgrade @ home.

firswt, who says you have use an ipod to play mp3s?

he stated "My 60GB iPod..." in his text. i was responding to the context.

second, IIRC Stereophile favorably reviewed the ipod's sound quality
a little while back.

perhaps compared to other similar types of devices, but for me they're
pretty mediocre.

--
stealthaxe

"jwvm" wrote in :



Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
be?

have you listened to an iPod? critically?

--
stealthaxe

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in news:dp7ovt02uu0
@news2.newsguy.com:



Actually, I'm very hard pushed to differentiate it from an original CD
on my main music rig, and that seems to be a common consensus.

ok, now i'm confused.

your main music rig is an iPod?

What makes you think that it *should* sound inferior?

i don't think it "should" sound inferior. i think it DOES sound inferior,
at least to my home rig, which doesn't include any iPod or any mp3 players.

--
stealthaxe

Codifus wrote in
:

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My
60GB iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no
loss of quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I
personally cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?


perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the
iPod rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an
upgrade @ home.


Because it's an MP3 you atuomatically assume its totally inferior. Is
that ignorance? Have you given yourself a chance to find out if MP3s
can
sound good?

interesting that you throw words around like ignorance. what reason
would you have to believe that i've never tried out mp3s? or iPods?

i have a large collection of mp3's, ripped from my collection, which i
listen to on the road when working.

i find that the sound quality i get from my laptop is superior to these
portable sound devices including the iPod.

It's the same, to a large extent, with MP3. You've got the Britney
Spears crowd who get massively compressed to hell 128 kbps MP3s
available over the ubiquitous file sharing networks, or you could try
and give a listen to a 320 Kbps mps encoded with LAME or Fraunhoffer.

I have a copy of lame, and i encode using VBR on nearly the highest
settings.

MP3 can sound very very good. There are also a bunch of other lossy
codecs which arguably do a very good job of "preserving" the highest
quality audio, like OGG and Apple's AAC.

OGG Vorbis was pretty interesting to me for a while. Arguably, high res
mp3 files are a considerable improvement over the 96 k/sec crap you find
here and there, but in the end i'm interested in finding better formats
and higher quality and not the other way around. I find "really good" is
not quite the same as "no loss of quality" which is the phrase i took
issue with.

--
stealthaxe

"bob" wrote in :


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

i'm sorry, were we talking about lossless compression?

--
stealthaxe

"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

Whilst agreeing with the sentiments, there is one glaring errors in the
text, which will detract from the value of the message.

MP3 files do not offer 1/30th of the sample rate of CD. They are sampled at
the same rate, or even a little higher at 48kHz. DATA rate is lower (not
sample rate), but not 1/30th. An MP3 at 128kBs is approximately 11:1 data
reduced, not 30:1.

Nevertheless, it is true that right up until a few years ago, audio
reproduction was ever upwards in quality. Microgroove LPs replaced 78s, and
CD replaced LPs, to provide ever increasing quality for the vast number of
consumers. (I don't want to get into a futile discussion about vinyl being
better than CD, it may be perceived to be so for a few audiophiles, but for
the great majority of the population with their radiograms or music
centres,
CD was a VAST improvement.) Latterly, SACD and DVD-A promised even better
quality, but these have failed to capture the public imagination, for whom
CD is already "pure, perfect sound forever"

Instead, the public imagination has been captured by the convenience of
portable storage and free (or at least cheap) downloading of music, and
quest for quality has lost the public interest.

I can very well understand the frustration of recording companies and their
artists and audiophiles like ourselves when we find that bye and large,
nobody cares for audio quality any more. It is very interesting that even
amongst the audio professionals with whom I have spent my working life,
questions of audio quality no longer seem to figure in choosing equipment;
reliability, convenience and of course, price, are considered more
important, as good audio quality is "taken as read".

I would dearly love to see a campaign along the lines of the Campaign for
Real Ale which did so much to reverse the downward spiral of beer quality,
do the same for audio, but sadly, I think that as long as the bulk of the
music listening public can't see what's wrong with MP3, the likes of us
audiophiles will be crying in the wilderness.

Sadly,

S.

stealthaxe wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

stealthaxe wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

However, one can now have both portability *and* high quality. My
60GB iPod is capable of storing some 150 CDs as .wav files with no
loss of quality whatever, or about 750 as 320kb/sec AACs, which I
personally cannot distinguish from the original.

"no loss of quality"?

perhaps not with the source material, but what about the playback
equipment? surely you're not stating that the sound quality of the
iPod rivals your home gear? if it does i'd seriously consider an
upgrade @ home.

firswt, who says you have use an ipod to play mp3s?

he stated "My 60GB iPod..." in his text. i was responding to the context.

second, IIRC Stereophile favorably reviewed the ipod's sound quality
a little while back.

perhaps compared to other similar types of devices, but for me they're
pretty mediocre.


http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcom...34/index2.html

"The compressed formats began to show some real promise at 320kbps.
Definition, detail, and soundstaging were all impressive, and
high-frequency response was almost liquid in its lack of edge effects. At
this rate, differences between the two formats jumped into sharper focus:
MP3 made transients "splashy," while AAC just sounded anemic compared to
the original. With both formats, dynamic variation was considerably
reduced compared to the CD."
Best of all€”and, to my ears, completely indistinguishable from the
original CD€”was AIFF. Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and
detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural. On my
reference rig, I could listen with immense pleasure for hours on end to
files ripped in AIFF. In fact, I did."


These quotes from Stereophile's ipod review do not suggest that sound
quality of the ipod per se is the problem.

Of course, typically for SP, they didn't do their comparisons blind, and I
suspect the 'splashy' and 'anemic' qualities heard at 320 kbps might
mysteriously disappear if so done.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

In article ,
"Serge Auckland" wrote:

"John Sunier" wrote in message
...
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=910

Whilst agreeing with the sentiments, there is one glaring errors in the
text, which will detract from the value of the message.

MP3 files do not offer 1/30th of the sample rate of CD. They are sampled at
the same rate, or even a little higher at 48kHz. DATA rate is lower (not
sample rate), but not 1/30th. An MP3 at 128kBs is approximately 11:1 data
reduced, not 30:1.

Nevertheless, it is true that right up until a few years ago, audio
reproduction was ever upwards in quality. Microgroove LPs replaced 78s, and
CD replaced LPs, to provide ever increasing quality for the vast number of
consumers. (I don't want to get into a futile discussion about vinyl being
better than CD, it may be perceived to be so for a few audiophiles, but for
the great majority of the population with their radiograms or music
centres,
CD was a VAST improvement.)

It might surprise some to know that I agree totally with this statement.

Latterly, SACD and DVD-A promised even better
quality, but these have failed to capture the public imagination, for whom
CD is already "pure, perfect sound forever"

Instead, the public imagination has been captured by the convenience of
portable storage and free (or at least cheap) downloading of music, and
quest for quality has lost the public interest.

I can very well understand the frustration of recording companies and their
artists and audiophiles like ourselves when we find that bye and large,
nobody cares for audio quality any more. It is very interesting that even
amongst the audio professionals with whom I have spent my working life,
questions of audio quality no longer seem to figure in choosing equipment;
reliability, convenience and of course, price, are considered more
important, as good audio quality is "taken as read".

I would dearly love to see a campaign along the lines of the Campaign for
Real Ale which did so much to reverse the downward spiral of beer quality,
do the same for audio, but sadly, I think that as long as the bulk of the
music listening public can't see what's wrong with MP3, the likes of us
audiophiles will be crying in the wilderness.

Sadly,

S.

Serge, thanks for the cogent post. IMO you are spot on with each issue.

There is an interesting piece currently on the NY Times website on
amplification in classical music performance that, I believe, relates to
the current of audio reproduction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/ar...ic/01tomm.html

Thanks again for the post.
Jenn

stealthaxe wrote:
"jwvm" wrote in :



Assuming that good headphones are used, where would the loss of quality
be?

have you listened to an iPod? critically?


Forgot to add, having posted a bit from the critical-listening review
in Stereophile -- they also measured the thingie.


"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players€”ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used
to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade
off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job
of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.€”John Atkinson"



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)

It's hard to imagine filling a 30- or 60-gig iPod with 128kbps content.
You'll be ripping disks for a year!

Well, I've got 20 gig remaining on my 30 gig 'pod, and lots that I
still want on it!

(And how many minutes of class will
you waste scrolling through all of it to find what you're looking for?)

I'm organizing the files into very specific playlists that will make
finding them quick and easy.


I usually recommend ripping at 192 kbps as a good compromise between
resolution and file size.

I'll give that a try and see what happens.

Of course, that won't work if youreally need
to cram 400 CDs onto a 30-gig drive. In which case, I have any even
better solution: You need TWO iPods--one for the class, and one for
you!

bob

LOL Good idea!

In article ,
(David E. Bath) wrote:

In article ,
Jenn writes:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 1 Jan 2006 19:28:10 GMT, fogdog wrote:

bob wrote:
fogdog wrote:


Does anyone actually put .wav files on their ipod? No.


Surely there are at least a few audiophile know-nothings who wouldn't
dream of using any form of compression, including lossless. (Just don't
tell them that hi-rez digital relies on it as well!)

bob
There might be someone out there but I haven't met the guy yet. Plus
iPod's do not play flacs and shns.

Hi there, glad to meet you! :-)

LOL
I'm a bit torn about what type of files to put on my new iPod. As is
the case of most of us here, I'm a very critical listener, so part of me
wants to go for the very best sound, which means smaller amount of music
on the device. On the other hand, the thought of having the maximum
amount of music at my disposal is the larger pull, I think, especially
since I will use it for classes. I think that I'll use it for DIFFERENT
kind of listening; 128 kbps importing will sound good enough for what
I'll use it for: instant access to a ton of music. I recognize that the
fidelity isn't optimum, and that's OK. At least that's my plan at this
hour :-)

I'm going through the same experimentation with encoders and encoding
rates myself. So far I'm quite happy with the LAME encoder set for VBR
standard. VBR (variable bit rate) encoding is superior to any fixed
rate that I've tried so far. I've been unable to tell any difference
between the original WAV file and the MP3 via headphones on my
computer. 128 Kbps fixed is noticeably different from the WAV in the
same setup. The resulting VBR files are about 20-25% larger than the
128 Kbps files.

Thanks for that tip. I have a few days off, so I'm going to try
different rates and see what happens. This is more fun than I thought
it would be; this thing is kind of seductive! :-) I'm also waiting on
the arrival of a Target rack that will allow me to change my hi-fi set
up MUCH to the better for sound; it will allow for a more dedicated
listening space like I used to have in the "old days." Good fun!