Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil? (Read 4474 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

I would like to raise a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Some years ago i really thought mpc or ogg would take mp3's place, and was astonished at the audio quality of those formats.

As I already read somewhere else in this forum (i'm an old newbie hydrogenaudio visitor), people are saying mp3 is going to outlive many other audio formats . If this is really the fact, do we have to get used to mp3 artifacts and not use better formats as mpc or ogg, because it will be difficult to have support for these other better lossy formats in the future?
Well, why don't we go back to vynil instead of sticking to cd's?

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #1 –
No.

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #2 –
Quote
I would like to raise a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Some years ago i really thought mpc or ogg would take mp3's place, and was astonished at the audio quality of those formats.

As I already read somewhere else in this forum (i'm an old newbie hydrogenaudio visitor), people are saying mp3 is going to outlive many other audio formats . If this is really the fact, do we have to get used to mp3 artifacts and not use better formats as mpc or ogg, because it will be difficult to have support for these other better lossy formats in the future?
Well, why don't we go back to vynil instead of sticking to cd's?


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317666"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
Your argument starts off about not using mp3 because of artifacts (that you get with ogg & mpc and all lossy formats btw), and then you say to use vinyl (note the spelling) instead of CDs!  Well, you never mentioned CDs... do you mean CD-Rs with mp3s on or do you mean 'proper' CDs?

And as Cyaneyes said, the answer is no.

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #3 –
NO!!! imagine the pain of playing vinyl discs on your car

If that doesn't make it then picture a vinyl discman.

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #4 –
To elaborate:

What he's saying is, if newer formats aren't gaining acceptance despite their higher quality, we might as well just go back to vinyl, since apparently no one cares about audio quality.

The fact is, mp3 sounds good enough to the vast majority of people, and with modern encoders and proper settings can very often reach transparency, even under critical listening conditions.

But no one's telling YOU what to do.  YOU don't need to continue using mp3 if you don't want to.  There's a world of options out there, in both lossless and lossy formats.

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #5 –
Quote

Your argument starts off about not using mp3 because of artifacts (that you get with ogg & mpc and all lossy formats btw), and then you say to use vinyl (note the spelling) instead of CDs!  Well, you never mentioned CDs... do you mean CD-Rs with mp3s on or do you mean 'proper' CDs?

And as Cyaneyes said, the answer is no.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317670"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, everybody knows lossy is lossy, the point is the hearable lossiness...
CD=PCM format... (i read somewhere else is lossy too, and it really must be when you use a sample frequency only two times the highest frequency a human is able to hear) but let's take for granted that pcm is not lossy...

Well... vynil also has a higher frequency response... (but the bad point here  is noise ... )

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote

Your argument starts off about not using mp3 because of artifacts (that you get with ogg & mpc and all lossy formats btw), and then you say to use vinyl (note the spelling) instead of CDs!  Well, you never mentioned CDs... do you mean CD-Rs with mp3s on or do you mean 'proper' CDs?

And as Cyaneyes said, the answer is no.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317670"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, everybody knows lossy is lossy, the point is the hearable lossiness...
CD=PCM format... (i read somewhere else is lossy too, and it really must be when you use a sample frequency only two times the highest frequency a human is able to hear) but let's take for granted that pcm is not lossy...

Well... vynil also has a higher frequency response... (but the bad point here  is noise ... )
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317674"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well someone might say noise in the right place is a good thing too...
And it surely is...
 

[NONSENSE] Should we go back to vynil?

Reply #7 –
Troll.