[Arkansan Raider]

I'm listening to a deluxe CD package of Jeff Buckley's "Grace" right now.

JVC CD deck--nothing special.

Outlaw pre/Hafler TA-1100 (my McIntosh amp is on the fritz). This isn't
the same Hafler that was giving me issues earlier.

Polk Audio 7b speakers.


I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think? I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.

I've toyed with the idea of re-ripping my CD library to WAV files, but
I've well over 700, maybe 800 CDs--and that's not nearly going to fit on
the 80gb iPod. Of course, I'd much rather have quality over quantity, so
if it takes ripping to WAV, that's what I'll do...

I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but I
also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the Casbah...

---Jeff

[Joe Mama]

On 14/03/2010 1:52 PM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
I'm listening to a deluxe CD package of Jeff Buckley's "Grace" right now.

JVC CD deck--nothing special.

Outlaw pre/Hafler TA-1100 (my McIntosh amp is on the fritz). This isn't
the same Hafler that was giving me issues earlier.

Polk Audio 7b speakers.


I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think? I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.

I've toyed with the idea of re-ripping my CD library to WAV files, but
I've well over 700, maybe 800 CDs--and that's not nearly going to fit on
the 80gb iPod. Of course, I'd much rather have quality over quantity, so
if it takes ripping to WAV, that's what I'll do...

I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but I
also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the Casbah...

---Jeff

I don't know much about FLAC, but I dare say Apple lossless is meant to
be, well, lossless. So yes, it'll sound "as good" as a CD, if you
played said CD through the D/A and amp of an iPod, that is.

Also, I couldn't agree more with your revelation - I'll never understand
how people can think something will sound as good after you've thrown
away over half of the information (usually up around 90%!) Ever listen
to the difference channel of a (poorly encoded) .mp3? Scary.

I don't own an iPod for mostly sonic reasons. Still have my little
Panasonic portable CD player in my bag, and a case full of discs.
It's heavier and less convenient to carry around, and I do get some
funny looks on the train sometimes (1990 called, they want their
portable music player back, etc.), but it's totally worth it.

That said, in all honesty I have a hard time picking a 320kbps .mp3 from
a full rate .wav or .aiff, and certainly wouldn't hear the differences
in the car or other noisy places, but dammit, I'm taking a stand! Can't
let things like reality interfere with that, now can I?

IMO/YMMV/etc.

Cheers,
-joe.

[Karamako[_2_]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
There could be an interesting discussion here about iPod
alternatives. Why does it have to be an iPod? Is the store that
useful?

I have this one :
http://www.iriver.at/flash_player.ht...w=features&L=0
it reads FLAC and is quite cheap but only 8 gb.

[Mike Rivers]

Arkansan Raider wrote:

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Did you try playing the iPod copy over the listening room system? I would
expect that MP3 conversion made some changes to the mix and overall
balance, but I'm sure that the difference between the earphones and the room
is also significant.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider wrote:

I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.

Yup. It's like that.

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think? I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.

Apple Lossless really _is_ lossless. You're still dependant on the quality
of the DAC, and a lot of computer DACs out there are still pretty bad, but
you can make sure to pick a good one.

I've toyed with the idea of re-ripping my CD library to WAV files, but
I've well over 700, maybe 800 CDs--and that's not nearly going to fit on
the 80gb iPod. Of course, I'd much rather have quality over quantity, so
if it takes ripping to WAV, that's what I'll do...

Why bother? Why not just play the CDs and listen to them? Instead of
just sort-of-listening in the background, make some time every week to just
sit down and listen to a CD.

I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but I
also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the Casbah...

I'm still listening on the secret radio band.
--scott


Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you should go listen to
live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.

Yup. It's like that.

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think? I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.

Apple Lossless really _is_ lossless. You're still dependant on the quality
of the DAC, and a lot of computer DACs out there are still pretty bad, but
you can make sure to pick a good one.

Delta 1010LT. Works for me!


I've toyed with the idea of re-ripping my CD library to WAV files, but
I've well over 700, maybe 800 CDs--and that's not nearly going to fit on
the 80gb iPod. Of course, I'd much rather have quality over quantity, so
if it takes ripping to WAV, that's what I'll do...

Why bother? Why not just play the CDs and listen to them? Instead of
just sort-of-listening in the background, make some time every week to just
sit down and listen to a CD.

I need to do that for sure--in fact I've some DVD-A's, SACDs and DTS
stuff that I really dig and I don't listen to it enough. Then again,
I've a roommate who doesn't have the same tastes in music as I, and I
don't want to impose on him too much, either.

I also like compiling my own playlists, which is kind of cumbersome to
do on CD's (but *is* something I've done in the past).


I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but I
also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the Casbah...

I'm still listening on the secret radio band.

LOL Roger that, Dick Tracy! The Shadow knows...

--scott


Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you should go listen to
live music sometime.... it's good stuff...


Oh, I do. Just opened for Lincoln Brewster last week. He was the
guitarist on Steve Perry's "For The Love Of Strange Medicine" album and
is now headlining his own Christian band--and is really popular.

We got to sing three songs (we were kind of thrown in at the last
minute), the crowd dug us--having not heard a cappella music before--and
then we got to enjoy the Lincoln Brewster concert.

Good stuff.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to hear Jeff Buckley live anytime soon...

Thanks, Scott!

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Karamako wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
There could be an interesting discussion here about iPod
alternatives. Why does it have to be an iPod? Is the store that
useful?

I have this one :
http://www.iriver.at/flash_player.ht...w=features&L=0
it reads FLAC and is quite cheap but only 8 gb.



That looks really nice.

I've an iPod because at the time, it was pretty much industry standard,
and I didn't realize all of the stuff it wouldn't play.

I'm seriously thinking about having this iPod become my sound source in
the car, since it's a noisier environment and could use the compression
and such in a positive way.

I'm also thinking about maybe a different player for casual listening,
that would have a larger hard drive capacity for the larger files. Of
course, that's a li'l ways away for me, so I may be making do with a
portable CD player or even my laptop computer (Toshiba Satellite P305D)
for serious listening.

Being that I don't want to disturb my roomie in the other room, I'll be
using either earbuds or headphones. Until I can afford to get the
ATH-50's or the EC5's, I'll be using some EC-2s or my AKG K270S's--or
even my RS Pro25's maybe.

What I wish I could afford right now is an Oppo BDP-83 with some
ATH-50's or some Grado's. That's a ways off, of course...

I shouldn't be complaining, really. I've some good options that the
casual listener wouldn't have, but my ears have gotten to where poor
sound just drags me. Mixed blessing, huh?

Something that I didn't mention before is that I really like the jukebox
function of iTunes, among other software. I bought a P4 Dell a while
back and added a 2TB Raid to it, mirrored for 1 TB capacity for my music
collection. This is also where I'll be storing the vinyl that I save off
to protect and still be able to listen.

I dig being able to hear songs outside of the album context and in a
playlist context of my own design. I suppose I could always pull
individual WAV files and put them on their own audio CDs, but that could
get to be a PITA, too...

Thanks!

---Jeff

[Geoff]

Arkansan Raider wrote:


I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but
I also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the
Casbah...

Do you require to have all your music available to you at any one time, or
have you considered the possibility of simply listening to your CDs ?

geoff

[Arkansan Raider]

geoff wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:

I know we're about to fight like cats and dogs over some of this, but
I also hold many of your opinions in high esteem--you guys rock the
Casbah...

Do you require to have all your music available to you at any one time, or
have you considered the possibility of simply listening to your CDs ?

geoff



I do that, but I also like the ability to have playlists. And a pseudo
home radio station, playing stuff at random sometimes.

Sometimes I want to hear a bunch of songs from a genre, rather than an
artist. Kind of a mood-setting gig.

That's the thought, anyway...

---Jeff

[slinkp]

On Mar 14, 3:47*am, Joe Mama wrote:
I don't know much about FLAC, but I dare say Apple lossless is meant to
be, well, lossless. *So yes, it'll sound "as good" as a CD, if you
played said CD through the D/A and amp of an iPod, that is.

Any lossless compression format produces output that is bit-for-bit
identical to the original uncompressed file.
So in terms of audio quality, FLAC and Apple lossless are identical.
Same applies to shorten, wavpack, etc.

The down side, of course, is you need a lot more storage compared to
lossy compression.

[--D-y]

On Mar 14, 12:27*pm, Arkansan Raider wrote:

I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Yeah, I get looked at in the gym with my old Panasonic CD/radio combo.
So it goes. A CD can be a great "timer" for a session on the rower,
for instance.

Whatever. I use both an iPod and CD's, depending on activity or
"setting".

FWIW, I use CD's in the car, which is just a year or so too old to
have a jack for iPod wire connection, and the "adapter" (I think it's
a Monster, I've had a couple of them) is fun and nostalgic for a
50's-60's kid who listened to faraway music on AM radio at night, but
CD's sound so much better, even through a mediocre Honda Odyessy
system (it's probably not a great hall, either, but there we are).

I copy everything via Roxio Toast Titanium (in Redbook, as I
understand), so if a CD is ruined, no big deal, just make another
copy.
Same with song lists made from iTunes; just leave the lists "up" and
make a new copy when needed, and you don't have to be fussy about
trying to baby CD's in a somewhat hostile environment. Or, maybe
you're not a mobile coffee drinker...
--D-y

[Steven Sullivan]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
I'm listening to a deluxe CD package of Jeff Buckley's "Grace" right now.

JVC CD deck--nothing special.

Outlaw pre/Hafler TA-1100 (my McIntosh amp is on the fritz). This isn't
the same Hafler that was giving me issues earlier.

Polk Audio 7b speakers.


I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.


I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

You haven't actually compared the mp3 to the CD. As far as I can tell, you're
comparing either Shure EC2s phones to Polk 7b speakers, or iPod analog output
to CDP analog output. All without level matching.

Try this: rip a track from Grace, encode it as 1228kbps mp3 using LAME,
then load it into your iPod. Then encode the same track as Apple Lossless and
put it on your ipod. Compare them blind when oplaying the iPod over your
Outlaw/Hafler/Polk rig.

Then you're much close to actually hearing what effect, if any, the mp3
is having on your listening.


Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think?

Of course. If it doesn't, something is wrong, or you're imagining the difference.


I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.


Not unless you use Rockbox.


I've toyed with the idea of re-ripping my CD library to WAV files, but
I've well over 700, maybe 800 CDs--and that's not nearly going to fit on
the 80gb iPod. Of course, I'd much rather have quality over quantity, so
if it takes ripping to WAV, that's what I'll do...

Try ~1896kbps variable bitrate mp3, encoded using LAME.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:

I'm saying this as I'm awed by the production and sonic qualities of an
album that I've been listening to for the last couple of years as an mp3
recorded at 128bps on an 80gb iPod Classic. Granted, I've not been using
the standard earbuds, but rather the Shure EC2s.

Yup. It's like that.

Might be. Doesn't have to be.


I'm ready to cry at the difference in sound quality, here. The CD
playing over speakers in a fairly live room (hardwood floors, sheetrock
walls, a couple of couches and bookshelves) that is maybe 12' x 12' is
producing quite a sonic impact compared to the mp3s.

Is Apple Lossless going to sound as good as the CD, do you think? I'd go
with FLAC or something but I'm thinking they're not compatible with
iPods at all.

Apple Lossless really _is_ lossless. You're still dependant on the quality
of the DAC, and a lot of computer DACs out there are still pretty bad, but
you can make sure to pick a good one.


Which ones are 'really bad'? As in, one could typically could tell them from
others in a blind level-matched test?



Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you should go listen to
live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

Or it can sound worse than what you get at home.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Scott Dorsey]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Apple Lossless really _is_ lossless. You're still dependant on the quality
of the DAC, and a lot of computer DACs out there are still pretty bad, but
you can make sure to pick a good one.

Which ones are 'really bad'? As in, one could typically could tell them from
others in a blind level-matched test?

Take a look at Arny's website where he tests a bunch of them. Some of
them look pretty good, some look pretty awful.

Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you should go listen to
live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

Or it can sound worse than what you get at home.

Sadly this is often true.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Apple Lossless really _is_ lossless. You're still
dependant on the quality of the DAC, and a lot of
computer DACs out there are still pretty bad, but you
can make sure to pick a good one.

Which ones are 'really bad'? As in, one could typically
could tell them from others in a blind level-matched
test?

Take a look at Arny's website where he tests a bunch of
them. Some of them look pretty good, some look pretty
awful.

Unfortunately Scott, www.pcavtech.com has been gone for years.

It is archived at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

http://web.archive.org/web/200601030...pare/index.htm

[William Sommerwerck]

Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you
should go listen to live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow definition
of the word.

I recently purchased the CD (not the LP) of the Keilberth "Ring". This
55-year-old analog recording has better sound -- that is, it sounds more
like live sound -- than almost any other recording I own, including all but
the best SACDs.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you
should go listen to live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow definition
of the word.

Generally. But sometimes instruments played through amplifiers and speakers
can be pretty good too. Sadly this is becoming rare, though.

I recently purchased the CD (not the LP) of the Keilberth "Ring". This
55-year-old analog recording has better sound -- that is, it sounds more
like live sound -- than almost any other recording I own, including all but
the best SACDs.

That has more to do with the people that made it than anything else, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

I recently purchased the CD (not the LP) of the Keilberth "Ring".
This 55-year-old analog recording has better sound -- that is, it
sounds more like live sound -- than almost any other recording
I own, including all but the best SACDs.

That has more to do with the people that made it than anything
else, though.

Perhaps. I associate it with the "fact" (???) that recording technology
wasn't sufficiently advanced to permit Decca to really screw up the sound.
You're hearing what is basically a crude "amateur" on-location recording.
Such recordings almost always have more-natural, more-realistic sound that
studio recordings. This was true for decades of delayed concert broadcasts,
and is still true for, say, the Met broadcasts (qa).

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Oh, yeah... and if you think the CD sounds good... you
should go listen to live music sometime.... it's good stuff...

I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow
definition of the word.

It's just as live as a violin. 'Live' should not be confused with
'acoustic' - they are totally different things.

I recently purchased the CD (not the LP) of the Keilberth "Ring". This
55-year-old analog recording has better sound -- that is, it sounds
more like live sound -- than almost any other recording I own,
including all but the best SACDs.

Maybe.

geoff

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:44:09 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:


I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow definition
of the word.

Only if YOU invent a special narrow definition of "live".

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow definition
of the word.

It's just as live as any other type or style of music that is first
generation, right from the source, and not a recorded repro of the
sounds.

Go to Al Green's church in Mempohis on a Sunday morning, and then come
back trying to say that wasn't live music.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

[Arkansan Raider]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I assume you mean /acoustic/ music, not instruments played through
amplifiers and speakers, which is "live" music only a very narrow definition
of the word.

It's just as live as any other type or style of music that is first
generation, right from the source, and not a recorded repro of the
sounds.

Go to Al Green's church in Mempohis on a Sunday morning, and then come
back trying to say that wasn't live music.


+1

Preach it.

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
You're hearing what is basically a crude "amateur" on-location recording.
Such recordings almost always have more-natural, more-realistic sound that
studio recordings. This was true for decades of delayed concert broadcasts,
and is still true for, say, the Met broadcasts (qa).

I would tend to agree, but sadly not in the case of the Met broadcasts which
have been severely overmiked for the last few years.

Listen to some of the Met broadcasts from the sixties and they sound a lot
more realistic than the current ones. Then again, if you listen to them
on a 4x6 inch AM radio speaker they might not be as intelligible. It's sort
of ironic that as the possible quality of playback has improved, there is more
of an attempt to compensate for poor quality playback.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
You're hearing what is basically a crude "amateur" on-location
recording. Such recordings almost always have more-natural,
more-realistic sound that studio recordings. This was true for
decades of delayed concert broadcasts, and is still true for, say,
the Met broadcasts (qa).

I would tend to agree, but sadly not in the case of the Met
broadcasts which have been severely overmiked for the last few years.

Listen to some of the Met broadcasts from the sixties and they sound
a lot more realistic than the current ones. Then again, if you
listen to them
on a 4x6 inch AM radio speaker they might not be as intelligible.
It's sort of ironic that as the possible quality of playback has
improved, there is more of an attempt to compensate for poor quality
playback.

Sure, and that radio is not unique in that !

geoff