[monstermob]

Hi All,

I found this newsgroup quite by accident, and after reading some of the
audio related posts, decided there seem to be a few experts in the house
which may have some opinions about Hi-Res music becoming the norm in the
future.

Q: Have web based downloads, or swapping of compressed files in the MP3 type
format reduced a younger generation into accepting low res recordings as
standard? Surely the technology of the time created this scenario because
the idea of carrying as many songs as possible on one portable device
excited people, but made the compression of music standard.

Now that Internet connection speeds are getting quicker, and data storage is
getting larger and cheaper, will high res recordings come back and become
standard one day? Will future improvements with speed and storage capacity
drive a resurgence of quality because of affordability, and the capability
of sending huge files easily through the net?

I'm sure this is a little simplistic, so If anyone can point me towards
other resources to read in regards to the future of music delivery, I would
be grateful.

Cheers
AL

[Arny Krueger]

"monstermob" wrote in message
news:vvadnWFMCMZK12XanZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@internode
Hi All,

I found this newsgroup quite by accident, and after
reading some of the audio related posts, decided there
seem to be a few experts in the house which may have some
opinions about Hi-Res music becoming the norm in the
future.

Hi Res music became the norm back in 1983 when the LP was replaced by the
CD. Compared to analog recording and playback, the CD format *is* a high
resolution format. In fact, it errs on the side of overkill.


Q: Have web based downloads, or swapping of compressed
files in the MP3 type format reduced a younger generation
into accepting low res recordings as standard?

Well, the LP was, compared to the CD format, a low res format. Those of us
who were forced to try to enjoy music from LPs were indeed forced to accept
low res recordings as the standard.

Surely the technology of the time created this scenario because
the idea of carrying as many songs as possible on one
portable device excited people, but made the compression
of music standard.

Within bounds, there's no problem with with lossy compression. But FWIW my
portable music player was loaded with as many .wav files as I could find or
make.

Now that Internet connection speeds are getting quicker,
and data storage is getting larger and cheaper, will high
res recordings come back and become standard one day?

If you mean, will CD format recordings come back, the answer is that they
were never gone. Anybody who had even a trivial PC, a CD amd some smarts
could load any credible portable music wave files with either uncompressed
hi-res audio, or audio that was so lightly compressed that there weren't any
audible problems.


Will future improvements with speed and storage capacity
drive a resurgence of quality because of affordability,
and the capability of sending huge files easily through
the net?

Been there, done that.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:00:21 +1000, monstermob wrote:
Hi All,

I found this newsgroup quite by accident, and after reading some of the
audio related posts, decided there seem to be a few experts in the house
which may have some opinions about Hi-Res music becoming the norm in the
future.

Q: Have web based downloads, or swapping of compressed files in the MP3 type
format reduced a younger generation into accepting low res recordings as
standard? Surely the technology of the time created this scenario because
the idea of carrying as many songs as possible on one portable device
excited people, but made the compression of music standard.

Compared to cassette ghetto blaster and cassette walkman? MP3s are
a hell of a higher quality than the older's generation's portable media.

If you don't like it, don't buy precompressed mp3s. Do your own compression.
@ 256kbps, you'll never hear the difference outside a quiet living and a $4K
rig and/or $300 headphones. It's the same advice of twenty years about
never buying prerecorded cassettes.

And quit whining about it.

[monstermob]

Compared to cassette ghetto blaster and cassette walkman? MP3s are
a hell of a higher quality than the older's generation's portable media.

If you don't like it, don't buy precompressed mp3s. Do your own
compression.
@ 256kbps, you'll never hear the difference outside a quiet living and a
$4K
rig and/or $300 headphones. It's the same advice of twenty years about
never buying prerecorded cassettes.

And quit whining about it.


Mr. Nomad, I think you may have missed the point. Perhaps the idea of this
newsgroup was originally to nurture a community of debate and the sharing of
knowledge?

Still, It's great to know that intellectual discussion is alive and well....
thank you to Arny and Stephen.

Alistair

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:36:11 +1000, monstermob wrote:
Compared to cassette ghetto blaster and cassette walkman? MP3s are
a hell of a higher quality than the older's generation's portable media.

If you don't like it, don't buy precompressed mp3s. Do your own
compression.
@ 256kbps, you'll never hear the difference outside a quiet living and a
$4K
rig and/or $300 headphones. It's the same advice of twenty years about
never buying prerecorded cassettes.

And quit whining about it.


Mr. Nomad, I think you may have missed the point. Perhaps the idea of this
newsgroup was originally to nurture a community of debate and the sharing of
knowledge?

Actually it is you who has missed the point. The concept of sacrificing audio
quality for portability is nothing new and used to be far worse.

You're lucky if you've never heard of the audio cassette or the popularity of
prerecorded cassettes as recently as fifteen years ago.

Most people listing on a walkman don't have headphones good enough to hear
the difference between a SACD and a 128kb mp3. Some of them are even
listening to the music instead of listening for mp3 defects.

[Arny Krueger]

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message


On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:36:11 +1000, monstermob
wrote:

Compared to cassette ghetto blaster and cassette
walkman? MP3s are
a hell of a higher quality than the older's
generation's portable media.

If you don't like it, don't buy precompressed mp3s. Do
your own compression.
@ 256kbps, you'll never hear the difference outside a
quiet living and a $4K
rig and/or $300 headphones. It's the same advice of
twenty years about never buying prerecorded cassettes.

Mr. Nomad, I think you may have missed the point.
Perhaps the idea of this newsgroup was originally to
nurture a community of debate and the sharing of
knowledge?

So where's the beef?

I mean besides the nonsense from the Middiot and his posse?

Actually it is you who has missed the point. The concept
of sacrificing audio quality for portability is nothing
new and used to be far worse.

Agreed.

You're lucky if you've never heard of the audio cassette
or the popularity of prerecorded cassettes as recently as
fifteen years ago.

I had a Sony WMD3 and made my own cassettes on metal tape.

That cost me about $500 for the player and recorder, and sounded like crap
compared to a $29 protable CD player.

Most people listing on a walkman don't have headphones
good enough to hear
the difference between a SACD and a 128kb mp3.

Could be, since you set the MP3 bar so low.

Some of them are even listening to the music instead of listening for
mp3
defects.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 7, 11:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message

*Some of *them are even * listening to the music instead of listening for
mp3
defects.

LOL!

I know, GOIA. Some people actually enjoy music. It's crazy, but it's
true!