| GratefulFan 23.11.2009 17:53 |
"Sounds Good to Me" From the article: “There was no convincing evidence that those subjects who consider themselves audiophiles and have invested more in high-quality MP3 players or headphones could discern lossy from lossless audio files better than anyone else. What they could do, however, was give you more convincing arguments as to why one version sounded better than the other. In effect, they had better tools with which to convince themselves that their subjective impressions were correct, even when those impressions were entirely misleading.” Also: “The only person to get all four tracks right is someone who listens to their headphones at pitifully low volumes and hasn’t attended any rock concerts. We can think of two explanations. One, the subject has particularly sensitive ears, so doesn’t need to turn the volume up high. Two, the subject hasn’t wrecked their hearing through years of listening to a walkman/MP3 player at high volumes and/or seeing Motorhead at the Hammersmith Odeon. Arguably, both apply.” Disclaimer: I have no expertise in this area, and am confident I left my own personal super hearing on some arena floor 25 or so years ago. |
| Jam Monkey 24.11.2009 07:36 |
Well this is a debate that is going to rage on and on. Personally I can tell no difference between high bit-rate mp3 and FLAC/WAV, although I do record all my vinyl and CD's on to my PC in WAV format. Thinking long term I this it makes sense to make recording in as high a quality as possible now. We don't know what advances there might be in speakers/headphones in years to come, and maybe in the future the differences between WAV and MP3 will become more obvious. |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2009 12:31 |
GratefulFan wrote: “There was no convincing evidence that those subjects who consider themselves audiophiles and have invested more in high-quality MP3 players or headphones could discern lossy from lossless audio files better than anyone else. ...which is precisely why they cannot discern between the two, because their ears had become used to listening to mp3s. Mp3 cuts out all frequencies after 16 kHz, while our ears are naturally equipped to hear up to about 20 kHz, give or take, depending on the person. It's primarily because of all this lossy audio that most people have no idea what quality is anymore. That, and most people listen to over-produced and/or bad computer-generated music that doesn't have rich textures and plenty of real musical instruments, so they don't know what real music is supposed to sound like in the first place. Let them have their mp3 players and youtube, and the rest of us can enjoy audio that isn't a partial digital representation of what it used to sound like. To me there is no debate. If one cannot hear the difference, then they should not be allowed to be part of the debate. It's like asking someone who's partially blind to compare the intricacies of the works of Picasso and Da Vinci, insisting to someone with 20/20 vision that they can't see the difference. |
| mooghead 24.11.2009 16:53 |
Remember an episode of the Gadget Show from last year. Dark Side of the Moon was played through a very high end amp and speaker setup through a vinyl player, cd player and iPod player (at a high bitrate) the experiment was in a theatre known for its great acoustics. The blindfolded judges said the mp3 player gave the overall best and most immersive sound followed by vinyl then cd. 'Audiophiles' are just musical snobs. |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2009 17:03 |
Who were the judges, and how good were their ears? Were they telling the truth, or are they on the show to push modern technology? Are they being told to push modern technology? What album was it? Was the CD/ipod from a remastered version? Was the LP from 1971? Had it been played before? Ten times? A hundred times? Did they properly eliminate all ground hum from the turntable? How good was the turntable itself, and its needle? These are all major factors in what the final product sounds like. Unless these questions were all answered, this isn't an entirely even playing field... |
| mooghead 25.11.2009 02:42 |
The Judges werent musical in anyway (Jason and Suzi - the presenters), they are just normal music fans with normal ears. The vinyl was a 1st played anniversary issue on a special 'heavy' vinyl if I remember rightly, cant remember about the cd I'm afraid but they were using the best quality they could find of each format so very likely a remaster if not dvd audio, really cant remember. The programme generally consists of consumer tests and in all the years I have watched it have not tried to 'push' any specific tech or brands. They wouldn't have performed this test on national tv without making it as fair a test as possible. They were as surprised when the results were revealed as the viewers were. |
| mooghead 25.11.2009 02:43 |
Theres plenty of gadget show stuff on youtube or their own site, cant be bothered to look for it myself right now. |
| john bodega 25.11.2009 10:30 |
I've got pretty good hearing in higher frequencies (I can hear those dog stunner things, but better in my right ear than my left). However I'm pretty sure I've gone slightly bass deaf and I do have a bit of tinnitus (high and low). Having said that, I think it's pretty obvious when you're listening to an mp3 if you are listening to it on an ordinary set of computer speakers. Cymbals are a giveaway instantly, because instead of sounding like cymbals they sound like someone going "SPLYSHYSPLYSHY" in a cymbal fashion. In other words, mp3 is awful for the effect that it has on certain frequencies. On the other side of the coin, I notice it way less if I'm listening over a big set of speakers. I think once you get to a certain volume level, it starts to matter less. I haven't anything to back that up, it's just the idea that I get after having had several parties where the music was delivered by mp3. |
| The Real Wizard 25.11.2009 11:05 |
mooghead wrote: The Judges werent musical in anyway (Jason and Suzi - the presenters), they are just normal music fans with normal ears. And they're entitled to their opinion. I can only hope the average person doesn't take this as absolute truth that vinyl sounds worse than 1s and 0s after being stripped of higher frequencies. If so, then this only feeds the ill-advised idea that current fads and technologies outdo the past in just about every way. |
| 4 x Vision 26.11.2009 08:28 |
SirGH, do you listen to ANY mp3s at all or have you any in your music collection? I agree with you, but I'm curious to whether you have given the format a proper try or if you've only listened to mp3s to find faults? I admit a difference, quite a clear one in terms of clarity... but I wouldn't write off mp3s as a format based on devotion to wave or flac. That said, you are right about the "gadgets" used to play the music, and the conditions etc I've grown very cynical and feel most programmes of this ilk are trying to sell something to the viewer! |
| The Real Wizard 26.11.2009 10:30 |
Of course I have mp3s. It's a necessary and convenient format for file sharing. But if I'm listening to a Stevie Wonder album, it won't be in mp3.. that's for sure.. :-) |