Digital Music & the Death of Hi-Fi

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,193
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
I responded to this article but it isn't showing for some reason. I thought the article was an interesting read but I disagree with some of their wording. They generalize that all digital files won't have true CD quality or vinyl quality. However, CDs themselves are made from digital files and one can rip a CD in the wav, Apple lossless, AIFF, FLAC, etc. formats and they are all lossless and digital thus having the exact same quality as the source CD. I also don't like that they initially portray 128kbps AAC to be utter crap, then they add some quotes at the end saying it is damned good. Which is it? I think that 128kbps AAC is a pretty good trade off for quality and file size. It is extremely hard to be able to effectively distinguish between 128kbps AAC (or Lame mp3) and the source CD when conducting true blind ABX tests. There are many users on this board who say things like "I can hear a difference" or "Give me 320kbps AAC or give me death" but they never provide any ABX results. Without ABX tests, audio claims are worthless.

Anyway, I think they really overplayed the "bad" sound quality of 128kbps AAC in the beginning of the article. They defended it in the end but bashed it in the beginning. On top of that, most people don't need a $5,000 sound system and the average ear can't hear a difference anyway. Most people, even people who are wealthy, are perfectly happy with their sub $1,000 home theater systems and hooking their iPods up to them.

I know I am happy carrying around my lossy library. I would much prefer carrying around ALL of my songs even if they are lossy instead of toting around some lossless files or carrying a portable CD player and hundreds of albums. I think the advancements of digital downloads are only going to make companies switch to an all digital market. Most people are happy paying $0.99 for a song or $9.99 for an album even if it is lossy. I use the iTunes Store to download the early singles but I never use it to purchase full albums. I will really start using the iTunes Store when they offer lossless files. I just don't want to be locked into the AAC format.

The article is an interesting read though, even if they kinda contradict themselves.
 

Galley

New member
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
4,290
Points
0
Location
Greenville, SC
Website
www.galleytech.com
If iTunes supported the "autofill" feature for the nano like it does for the shuffle, would I rather have 1000 128Kbps tracks than 150 lossless tracks? YES!
My lossless files are for listening on my MacBook's audio system or my home theater.
 

tw0k1ngs

RWA iMod Connoisseur
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
50
Points
0
Galley said:
If iTunes supported the "autofill" feature for the nano like it does for the shuffle, would I rather have 1000 128Kbps tracks than 150 lossless tracks? YES!
My lossless files are for listening on my MacBook's audio system or my home theater.
Well of course if you are using the stock earbuds/no amp. But if you have a portable "audiophile on the go" setup like I do:

Red Wine Audio iMod 60GB
RSA Hornet Portable Amp
AKG k701 Headphones

then I don't see how you can use anything BUT apple lossless.
 

tw0k1ngs

RWA iMod Connoisseur
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
50
Points
0
kornchild2002 said:
I responded to this article but it isn't showing for some reason. I thought the article was an interesting read but I disagree with some of their wording. They generalize that all digital files won't have true CD quality or vinyl quality. However, CDs themselves are made from digital files and one can rip a CD in the wav, Apple lossless, AIFF, FLAC, etc. formats and they are all lossless and digital thus having the exact same quality as the source CD. I also don't like that they initially portray 128kbps AAC to be utter crap, then they add some quotes at the end saying it is damned good. Which is it? I think that 128kbps AAC is a pretty good trade off for quality and file size. It is extremely hard to be able to effectively distinguish between 128kbps AAC (or Lame mp3) and the source CD when conducting true blind ABX tests. There are many users on this board who say things like "I can hear a difference" or "Give me 320kbps AAC or give me death" but they never provide any ABX results. Without ABX tests, audio claims are worthless.

Anyway, I think they really overplayed the "bad" sound quality of 128kbps AAC in the beginning of the article. They defended it in the end but bashed it in the beginning. On top of that, most people don't need a $5,000 sound system and the average ear can't hear a difference anyway. Most people, even people who are wealthy, are perfectly happy with their sub $1,000 home theater systems and hooking their iPods up to them.

I know I am happy carrying around my lossy library. I would much prefer carrying around ALL of my songs even if they are lossy instead of toting around some lossless files or carrying a portable CD player and hundreds of albums. I think the advancements of digital downloads are only going to make companies switch to an all digital market. Most people are happy paying $0.99 for a song or $9.99 for an album even if it is lossy. I use the iTunes Store to download the early singles but I never use it to purchase full albums. I will really start using the iTunes Store when they offer lossless files. I just don't want to be locked into the AAC format.

The article is an interesting read though, even if they kinda contradict themselves.
Like I said, its all about how the SOURCE is interpreted. If you squint your eyes tightly (equivalent of the stock earbuds) and look at the Venus de Milo... it will obviously look like some fuzzy statue and you probably couldn't tell the difference between it being a Venus de Milo or a knock off. However, if you open your eyes and have an incredible pair of spectacles, the difference between the two is QUITE obvious.

When people can't tell on a blind ABX test, either they just suck, or the output equipment is utter crap. You are honestly saying that most people can't tell the difference between 128 and lossless on an audiophile's system?

That being said, nothing portable can have "Vinyl" quality. There is just no possible way to digitally recreate the analog experience (even if it is a subconscious thing, it will never be the same)

I personally need to experience the most crystal-clear and dynamic audio possible, because music is more than just "sound" to me. If I am not hearing every bit of detail the artist intended, well, it just isn't "art" to me.

On this note I agree: If you have an unmodified iPod, and are just going straight from stock iPod to stock earbuds, do not carry around lossless files, as you will only be polishing a turd and it is not worth the capacity loss.
 

bobb-mini

Insanely Sarcastic
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
6,989
Points
0
Location
Silicon Valley
tw0kings, they are talking about the masses. Sadly, todays' kids dunn know their hifi vs wifi. and get all excited about showing their monophonic ringtones to their friends.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,193
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
tw0k1ngs said:
When people can't tell on a blind ABX test, either they just suck, or the output equipment is utter crap. You are honestly saying that most people can't tell the difference between 128 and lossless on an audiophile's system?
Just because someone can't hear the difference between 128kbps and the source CD doesn't mean they suck or that their equipment is crap. Lossy audio formats have come a long way since the days of MusicMatch and Xing. Many lossy audio formats (iTunes AAC, Nero AAC, Lame mp3, even iTunes mp3) can achieve perceptual transparency at a bitrate of 192kbps. And yes, most people can't truly hear the difference between 128kbps AAC (or Lame mp3) and the source lossless file. The term audiophile is thrown around too much. Many people proclaim themselves to be audiophiles when in fact, they are just ignorant and don't want to fess up to the facts about lossy encoding (which I think we are seeing).

If you need to carry around a portable amp and a iPod filled with a couple hundred lossless files then that is your prerogative (since you said you need to hear absolutely every detail of the music), most people are happy carrying around a couple thousand lossy songs with decent headphones.

I do agree with bobb-mini though, most people don't know whether to wind their buts or scratch their watches when it comes to digital audio. I am by no means an audiophile but at least I am informed and I know my limitations.
 
Last edited:
Top