Music to My Ears

[Sukerkin]

This is a link to an article about a subject close to my heart ... the soulless convenience that is digital/CD music.

I have long claimed that CD's just do not sound as good as my old vinyl - they are just much more convenient to port about and use when I am not at home.

Read the article and see what you think:

http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=106

I am most awesomely glad that I still have my old vinyl collection .

 

[Ken Morgan]

"Sitting down between the speakers in the dark..."

My god that was the only way to listen to music!!

Honestly i think they are talking about music at such a high level, most people wouldn't "get" it. The whole trick is to have a kick *** music system. A music nut friend of mine just renovated his house, he rigged it for music; speakers and sub wolfers in the ceilings all through the house, all digital music, it sounds amazing.

I rarely have time to listen to music, just for musics sake, its background for me too....

 

[Sukerkin]

That is something that I think has happened to many of us as the years go by. I haven't just sat down and listened to a record for longer than I can recall .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have a tube amplifier and various other vintage audiophile kit, and yes, I have LP records and a good turntable. I also listen to music on CD even (gasp) to MP3 files. I like them all.

Yes, the LP sounds different. In some ways, it sounds better. I prefer it for many things. However, I do not think that digitally-recorded or replayed music is 'soulless'.

I like film and film cameras too. I also use the latest in digital photographic equipment (such as I can afford). I like them both, too. I agree also that film is superior to digital for many things, just like LP records are superior to digital formats in many ways. However, I like them both. I also do not think of digital cameras as 'soulless'.

I just like what I like. I don't draw distinctions like that. I love old cars; newer ones are safer and get better fuel efficiency. Both have characteristics to recommend them; both are what they are, all positives and negatives taken together.

I used to like to sit in the dark and listen to my MFSL 1/2 speed master LP's of Frank Sinatra played over my Luxman amplifier through my AR speakers, generally while sipping on a Bourbon. I still do, but I don't do it as often now.

And I'm as likely to listen to it though my headphones on my iPod whilst laying in bed now.

Life's funny that way. I also have some hearing loss that goes along with my military service. Life's funny that way, too. If I can no longer hear the difference, it isn't there for me.

I just like music. I'll take it anyway you got it.

 

[Omar B]

To this day I don't own an Ipod or any other type of MP3 player. Why? Because I have perfect pitch and can hear the difference so why would I invest in something that sounds bad.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To this day I don't own an Ipod or any other type of MP3 player. Why? Because I have perfect pitch and can hear the difference so why would I invest in something that sounds bad.

You won't have forever. Just sayin'. And it "sounds bad" to you, but not to me; so clearly we're talking about subjective statements here.

 

[Omar B]

It's less subjective than it is objective Bill, after all most people can not tell one pitch from another much more it's quality of reproduction. Play an average person an A or an F and they could not point out one from the other really. With a well enough developed ear anyone can hear the difference. Not that it matters really, as long as the person who spent the money enjoys it that's what matters.

 

[xJOHNx]

I'm very strict on things like this. I only listen to blues, jazz and the likes on vinyl (norah jones, amen ra, tooth, and so on). The extra layer of "dust" makes it sounds much more passionate.

Other stuff I just put on a cd. A good system helps alot.

 

[girlbug2]

I've still got Pink Ffloyd's The Wall on vinyl, but no player .

It was really fun to listen to vinyl albums back in the day. There was even this hard-to-describe smell that came off the record after the player warmed up a bit and the needle connected to it. Plus, the cover artwork was so amazing in a 12 X 12 format.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's less subjective than it is objective Bill, after all most people can not tell one pitch from another much more it's quality of reproduction. Play an average person an A or an F and they could not point out one from the other really. With a well enough developed ear anyone can hear the difference. Not that it matters really, as long as the person who spent the money enjoys it that's what matters.

"Accurate" is objective. "Better" is subjective. Tube amps are notoriously less accurate at reproducing music, but those who prefer them pronounce them 'better' nonetheless. Accuracy can be measured, but preference not so much.

 

[Omar B]

You seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't say, my post was about mp3 players as compared to a non compressed format. Not tube versus digital. Hell, half my guitar rig is digital, I've got a V-Amp 2, Pod-Pro and a Spider 2.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't say, my post was about mp3 players as compared to a non compressed format. Not tube versus digital. Hell, half my guitar rig is digital, I've got a V-Amp 2, Pod-Pro and a Spider 2.

Ah, gotcha there. But you did say: "Because I have perfect pitch and can hear the difference so why would I invest in something that sounds bad." I only noted that they don't sound 'bad' to me. So to me, 'good' and 'bad' are subjective.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's an important note about hearing loss, Bill. I know I have a good deal both from firing rifles (in the days when that was okay over here ) and too many Rock concerts and metal disco's .

If you do have perfect pitch (and like Omar I did (off-key is physically painful even now)) then CD's and especially loss-based format's like MP3 will sound worse because there is content missing.

It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the population is involved in this but it is worth noting, despite the fact that I am firmly in the vinyl camp, that as soon as you put furniture or carpet in a room you've wrecked the acoustics. So headphones are really the only way to go for un-interfered sound.

 

[Omar B]

Yeah Bill, I did say "bad" and bad is subjective sure. What is objective though is what I commented on, the lossy formats such as MP3 which sound like AM radio to me at best. Most people won't hear it so it's great for them, it's not like I go to bars and clubs and point out when the music is in a lossy format, but you do notice.

I'm not sure on how the science works, but if I remember correctly where analog records the sound, CDs sample the sound however many times per second and it works like animation where 13 frames per second the eye sees as smooth movement. CDs are great because unlike analog they don't deteriorate as readily but there is a difference. One you could quibble over, not care about or avoid depending on how much you care.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's an important note about hearing loss, Bill. I know I have a good deal both from firing rifles (in the days when that was okay over here ) and too many Rock concerts and metal disco's .

If you do have perfect pitch (and like Omar I did (off-key is physically painful even now)) then CD's and especially loss-based format's like MP3 will sound worse because there is content missing.

It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the population is involved in this but it is worth noting, despite the fact that I am firmly in the vinyl camp, that as soon as you put furniture or carpet in a room you've wrecked the acoustics. So headphones are really the only way to go for un-interfered sound.

I hear ya (pun intended). I discovered my hearing loss on an airplane ride, listening to MP3's. I thought I had blown one side of my headphones. Switched to another pair, same problem. Changed L to R, and the problem stayed in my L ear. Obviously not headphones, then, eh?

Had a checkup, the loss is yes in the gunshot ranges and permanent, but mostly in the left ear. Don't know why, I shoot right-handed.

I tend to prefer good open high-efficiency speakers such as my Klipsch KG-2 or my KEH Six with a fairly high-powered amp. I work on speaker placement and don't fret too much over carpet and wall coverings, etc. Headphones (cans) don't really do it for me anymore due the loss in my L ear. I notice it less when I can adjust room acoustics to compensate, which I can't really do with a simple balance adjust on cans.

But I don't do much critical listening anymore. Sometimes. I'm a member of SMAC. http://sites.google.com/site/michiganaudioclub/

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I do agree. Despite headphones being the 'purer' option, unless I am avoiding annoying someone else with my music, I much prefer to listen 'naked' ... er, no ... not naked in that way :lol:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Aye, I do agree. Despite headphones being the 'purer' option, unless I am avoiding annoying someone else with my music, I much prefer to listen 'naked' ... er, no ... not naked in that way :lol:

Penalty on the play, horrifying mental image, five yards, no first down.

 

[Sukerkin]

ROFLKLITA - sorry . I know what has been imagined cannot be un-imagined

 

[jks9199]

Yeah Bill, I did say "bad" and bad is subjective sure. What is objective though is what I commented on, the lossy formats such as MP3 which sound like AM radio to me at best. Most people won't hear it so it's great for them, it's not like I go to bars and clubs and point out when the music is in a lossy format, but you do notice.

I'm not sure on how the science works, but if I remember correctly where analog records the sound, CDs sample the sound however many times per second and it works like animation where 13 frames per second the eye sees as smooth movement. CDs are great because unlike analog they don't deteriorate as readily but there is a difference. One you could quibble over, not care about or avoid depending on how much you care.

Bare bones of the process:

Analog captures the actual waveform, whatever the medium. If you look at an album really close, the track is a squiggly line. That line is the translation of the microphones vibration... and plays back by vibrating the speaker.

Digital conversion takes that analog sound wave, and samples it. It's essentially doing calculus to determine the shape of the wave, and recording that as a number. How often it looks at it controls how good it is. The more it looks at it, the better it captures the actual wave. (I personally think that one day we'll reach a point that technology can look at the wave often enough that we cannot distinguish it with our ears from the real thing. We may even be there today.)

MP3 and other compression processes look at those numbers from the digital conversion, and eliminate duplication or empty spaces through various algorithms. By eliminating this, the files take up less space -- but you do lose some of the original quality. Successive compressions can really reduce the quality... In theory, when it's played, the reverse algorithms put all the data back... but the reality is that some is just plain lost. Most people probably can't really tell the difference; a few can. (Same thing is done with digital fingerprint comparison. Which is why a print examiner still needs to review the matches and make the final call.)

In all honesty, I suspect that a lot of the folks out there claiming that they can tell the difference between digital and analog and that analog is "better" are just being snobs -- and would be fooled by uncompressed, high sample rate digital. If not wowed by it... But I might be wrong; I surely don't have perfect pitch. (In fact, when I asked a voice teacher where I sang best, I got two answers: "solo" -- as in "so low that" they couldn't hear me... and "far away".)

 

[Omar B]

Great explanation man. As I said before, my problem comes in where MP3 is concerned. The industry is going digital and companies like Digidesign and Cakewalk and on and on are doing great things with high quality digital. It's what happens to the material after that's usually the problem. Pro-tools is the industry standard pretty much.

The analog versus digital argument can go on forever and get totally pedantic. I just hope the instruments are in tune.