Audiophile?

[PeopleYouKnow]

How many of you guys are so OCD with your music that you won't accept listening to things unless they are v0 mp3 quality or higher?

I have lossless stuff for all of my favorite artists, but honestly I won't listen to music on my computer unless it's all v0 VBR or better. :/

 

[IntoEternity]

I wouldn't call myself an audiophile, really, but most of my music is in 320... well, maybe I am a slight audiophile.

 

[wirega56]

Why not play your original CD instead if you are so audiophile ?

 

[trinket]

How many of you guys are so OCD with your music that you won't accept listening to things unless they are v0 mp3 quality or higher?

I have lossless stuff for all of my favorite artists, but honestly I won't listen to music on my computer unless it's all v0 VBR or better. :/

Hey, I'm with you! I use v0 VBR (w/LAME) for MP3 encoding most of the time if I want to take some of my music from CD onto a portable device with me. That's assuming the device (and I've owned a few over the years) won't play FLAC or WAVs themselves or other lossless formats, and I want/need to MP3 it. There are probably lots of already-over-compressed pop/rock recordings that don't really need it, in terms of the extra quality not really being of any benefit (I recommend the Rolling Stone article 'The Death of High Fidelity' for anyone interested in audio), and might be excessive for them, but it's easier (and more consistent) to leave my settings across-the-board - and some of my music I'll want to listen to on-the-go might have higher detail and wider dynamic range (like, say, classical or film music or a live acoustic concert or something - and it can be very noticeable in some cases when the lower quality MP3 settings tend to really do a number on this music), so why not use something that could take advantage.

Why not play your original CD instead if you are so audiophile ?

Portability is a big thing - you're right, conceivably you could buy a portable CD player, but how commonly do you see those these days? So if you have to MP3 it - and let's face it, love it or hate it, MP3 has become an accepted standard for many music devices, both portable and stand-alone - may as well use what's regarded as a higher end quality of what the format can deliver.

 

[andysayshi]

I hate all compression, but of course you gotta use it sometimes. I store all my music in Apple Lossless format. I use mp3 @256Kbps on my iPhone - otherwise, lossless all the way.

 

[pausanias_usa]

I bittorrent from (legal) bootleg sites: namely, those that have unreleased live recordings of known artists who allow such.

Lossless is usually demanded unless it is only available in mp3 format.

But once you have downloaded it, yes, sometimes it is ok to convert to lower bit rates for portability, but you'd better not trade it, as you'd receive howls of protest. . . .

With bootleg, quality is not always assured -- but some of it is better than the released stuff!

 

[Paws]

Not below 128kbps D:

 

[GamerBear]

Sadly there are people out there who convert a really really really really rare album into 128kbps, can't find anything higher than that. Almost all my music is 192 or higher.

 

[evilest]

I'm going deaf and I love my music. As a plus it means I usually miss some of the flaws in a recording, but what does drive me nuts is the tinny sound you get on top end notes, especially cymbal crashes!

 

[bankside]

I have no idea. I would be in the "not" category.

 

[thermodynamics]

Though I do rip at high bitrates, I have no qualms about not going lossless.

In reality, I don't know that many of us could pick out a 320 vs half that in a strict statistically rigorous A-B test.

 

[Paws]

But there are a ton of dupes and some funked-up files names.

Use a duplicate file finder and a renamer like Musicbrainz...

 

[andysayshi]

Anyway, let's say I see some at 112 VBR does that mean 112 is the best it would play? I really want 192 or higher but I'm settling for 128.

Once a track is compressed, the information that is lost in the music is lost forever. An mp3 at 112Kbps will have quite distinct compression artifacts - I would struggle to listen to music at that rate.

That said, the type of music is also important. MP3 compression is most obvious in very complex music like big orchestral pieces (and, believe it or not, heavy rock and metal - the compression of distorted guitar is quite noticeable). One advantage to the heavily compressed dynamics and auto-tuned music that is common on the charts today (such as Britney) is that much of the dynamics and tonal complexity is lost long before the track is converted to an mp3.

 

[trinket]

One advantage to the heavily compressed dynamics and auto-tuned music that is common on the charts today (such as Britney) is that much of the dynamics and tonal complexity is lost long before the track is converted to an mp3.

Yeah, check out the "Death of High Fidelity" article I linked to in my post in this thread. Garbage (or, well, lack of dynamic range at source) in, garbage out. The funny thing is that as a general culture, convenience is chosen over quality - music meant for the masses is sounding worse than ever (over-compression at source, or badly compressed MP3's) despite audio recording, mixing and reproduction technology continually improving. But I do think the awareness of "lossless" is increasing, some players support better codecs, and if DVD-A and SACD couldn't make any dent in the market in a significant way, at least forms of visual reproduction improvement like Blu-Ray will have upgraded audio going along for the ride.

 

[Joshua_me]

(I recommend the Rolling Stone article 'The Death of High Fidelity' for anyone interested in audio),

^ That's an excellent article. It should be required reading, IMO.

If only we could convince the music-listening public that loud doesn't equal better...

But, I guess that will never happen. It's the same mindset that tells people the more watts, the better the amp.

Sad.

 

[Telstra]

LOL, your phone audio is of low quality.

How cum you listen to your phone then ?

 

[seven_sins]

Some pretty reliable double blind listening tests have shown that one cannot hear the difference between 192k lame encoded mp3s and the original source.

 

[Telstra]

LOL, your phone audio is of low quality.

How cum you listen to your phone then ?

sorry, this is a tech talk and not hot topics .....
apologies ...