Skip to main content
Topic: "Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred (Read 31929 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #25
I emailed Dr. Berger asking for clarification on the testing protocol, encoder settings and samples. Hopefully he hasn't yet disconnected all his email accounts and will respond

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #26
Quote
I emailed Dr. Berger asking for clarification on the testing protocol, encoder settings and samples. Hopefully he hasn't yet disconnected all his email accounts and will respond


I would be interested in seeing what his results are. Knowing that the article has been circulating to several news outlets all over the web without any clarification is not very helpful. It's funny watching baboon's getting into arguments over the results he concluded in the article and listening to people on other web sites who have clearly no idea what they are talking about. No I litterally see this article everywhere now. Talk about crappy 3rd hand reporting.
budding I.T professional

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #27
[quote author=Sound-of-Muzak link=msg=621076 date=1237002184]
[quote author=Sound-of-Muzak link=msg=621049 date=1236989810]There's an entire generation growing up thinking mp3s are what music sounds like.  Depressing really.


By that do you mean unidentifiable from the source material?


No. The kids subconsciously preferred the lesser quality file. Most people don't use good encoders like the people here at HA. As well, many listen on terrible quality earbuds. I should have been more precise. People used to obsess over the best possible stereo equipment they could find.[/quote]


Only some people.  And only some people still do.


Quote
Now the emphasis is on not having to be bothered with listening to the music, but rather how convenient is it.


apparently you've forgotten

--portable radio
--the 45 single and 'portable' devices for playing them
--the LP/45 'changer' where you stacked discs up
--car stereo
--the cassette
--the walkman

and that's all before the CD revolution
[/quote]

No I havent forgotten, but thanks for the reminder.  I should stop caring so much.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #28
What is this sizzling sound of which they speak?  Seriously, I've never heard anything on any of my mp3s that approximates a sizzling sound.  Are there examples of it?  Is it something that would be more likely to crop up in an mp3 from a file sharing network that has been transcoded?
 

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #29
SSSizzling sssoundsss explained by Slipstreem in post #19.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #30
SSSizzling sssoundsss explained by Slipstreem in post #19.


I wonder if the popularity of MP3 among today's "youth" has little to do with music , either the genre or the quality, but  is due mainly to:

(a) portability of the players (a student can listen in class and tune out the teacher);

(b) earbuds + player hanging around the neck as mandatory fashion accessory.

Earlier today, I asked my friend's 15 year old daughter what she was listening to on her Ipod. Dig this:

She: "I dunno."
Me: "Is it rock?"
She: "Yeah, kinda."
Me: "Do you like it?"
She: "Its okay."
Me:" What kind of music do you like?"
She: "I dunno."
Me: 'Do you like Metal?"
She: "What's that?"
Me: "Very heavy hard rock, like Led Zeppelin."
She: "Oh, you mean Hardcore."
Me: "Yeah."
She: "Its okay." 
Me: "Well, is there some type of music that you like more than just 'okay'?"
She: I dunno." 
Carbona not glue.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #31
Thanks for making me chuckle, and welcome aboard!

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #32
SSSizzling sssoundsss explained by Slipstreem in post #19.


I wonder if the popularity of MP3 among today's "youth" has little to do with music , either the genre or the quality, but  is due mainly to:

(a) portability of the players (a student can listen in class and tune out the teacher);

(b) earbuds + player hanging around the neck as mandatory fashion accessory.

Earlier today, I asked my friend's 15 year old daughter what she was listening to on her Ipod. Dig this:

She: "I dunno."
Me: "Is it rock?"
She: "Yeah, kinda."
Me: "Do you like it?"
She: "Its okay."
Me:" What kind of music do you like?"
She: "I dunno."
Me: 'Do you like Metal?"
She: "What's that?"
Me: "Very heavy hard rock, like Led Zeppelin."
She: "Oh, you mean Hardcore."
Me: "Yeah."
She: "Its okay." 
Me: "Well, is there some type of music that you like more than just 'okay'?"
She: I dunno." 


Further proof of why I find the iPod culture depressing.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #33
I am part of the "iPod culture" yet I do not fit within that group.  I enjoy carrying around my entire lossy library.  Is there something wrong with that.  Granted, I do feel that some people use iPods and those white earbuds as fashion statements.  I call them pod people and just ignore them.  These people are really using a brand (Apple) and name (iPod) to fit in with whomever they feel like (or be a non-conformist conformist and get a different brand simply because they hate iPods because they are iPods).  I don't think it is right to blanket label these people and call them "the iPod culture."  I have been using iPods since about 2003 and there was only one time when I used the stock earbuds: when I first got my 3G 40GB iPod and realized how lousy the earbuds were.  After the first day of lectures, I went to Best Buy and picked up a nice over-the-ear Sony pair and have been using them for a while now.

I do have to change some things around that Mike would say and then I would agree:
(a)  Portability of having access to my entire lossy library.
(b) headphones allow me to listen to my music whenever I like.

Those are just two of the reasons why I like my iPod.  I do feel sorry for the person you talked to though.  I enjoy using my iPod to discover new music that I simply haven't listened to and rated yet.  It is too bad that the "youth" of today really doesn't educate themselves when it comes to lossy/lossless encoding and focus more on the iPod rather than the music the device is playing.

Welcome to the boards.  Oh, one more thing, Led Zeppelin aren't metal.  They used to be but, by today's standards, they are boarder rock-hard rock.  I wouldn't even classify a band such as Black Sabbath as being metal anymore.  Someone gave me their Crooked X album to listen to.  They said it was some pretty "hard metal."  I listened to the opening track while they were standing there and promptly gave them the disc back saying they were nothing more than generic radio rock.  Sigh, good metal is hard to come by.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #34
The "blanket" term applies to the group, and people like you don't fall into the group. Like you said, kids like this only care about the ipod not so much the music. Someone like you cares about the music. Sadly, I don't think people like yourself are in the majority. There are subcultures within cultures, and you and the kid are in two different subcultures. I also wouldn't classify zeppelin as metal, but they certainly helped get it going.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #35
[quote author=Sound-of-Muzak link=msg=621511 date=1237161289]Further proof of why I find the iPod culture depressing.[/quote]

Judging by your posts on HA you seem to find a lot of things iPod related depressing.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #36
Going totaly off thread - IMO there ain't been any good Metal since about 1973. I mentioned LZ to Diane because I figured she would recognize the name.

My point was in response to the OP: Why would the MP3 generation (w/ exceptions, of course) care about compressed audio, when they don't seem to even care about what they are listening to? I have a suspicion that many kids I see with buds in their ears don't even have the players turned on. 

But there is a good use for MP3 players. Kids can listen to music in thier rooms as loudly as they like w/o disturbing the rest of the house.
Carbona not glue.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #37
I guess the thing is that people use music in various ways. Sometimes it's used as background. In the 18th century, apparently a lot of chamber music which is now treated fairly reverentially was used as background music, by people who had the money to have musos playing for them. Today, most people use background music in the car. Some people only use music for background, and have the radio going all the time, and it tends to drive me nuts if I'm forced to listen to other people's background music, so I for one welcome our new white earphone overlords, especially since you don't get the sound leakage from them you used to get from a Walkman.

The iPod Shuffle is, certainly, designed for music-as-background exclusively, but it's a helluva lot more socially responsible than a boom box carried over the shoulder. Music-as-background tends to get identified with the technology that makes it possible; I recollect reading about "cheap music on cheap gramophones" from the 1930s; there was demonization of the transistor radio; demonization of the Walkman. Digital is nothing new. Oh, and the great founding hero of the digital age, Babbage himself, waged a spirited campaign against barrel organs, and damn right, too.

And, also, I'd be surprised if anyone old enough to have a friend with a 15 y.o. daughter would get straight answers from said daughter; I mean, we just wouldn't understand (and, very probably, we wouldn't).

And, finally, let me end this rambling rant with a reminder of Sturgeon's Revelation: "Ninety per cent of everything is crap."

But Apple gear certainly looks good, and doesn't sound bad, to my cloth ears, either.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #38
Earlier today, I asked my friend's 15 year old daughter what she was listening to on her Ipod. Dig this:

She: "I dunno."
Me: "Is it rock?"
She: "Yeah, kinda."
Me: "Do you like it?"
She: "Its okay."
Me:" What kind of music do you like?"
She: "I dunno."
Me: 'Do you like Metal?"
She: "What's that?"
Me: "Very heavy hard rock, like Led Zeppelin."
She: "Oh, you mean Hardcore."
Me: "Yeah."
She: "Its okay." 
Me: "Well, is there some type of music that you like more than just 'okay'?"
She: I dunno." 


Thanks for sharing that Mike. That conversation reminds me a lot of a song called "Sorta Dunno Nothing" by Australia Peter Denahy. It's pretty funny if anyone wants to have a listen here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKaUL2mtAqA...feature=related

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #39
And, also, I'd be surprised if anyone old enough to have a friend with a 15 y.o. daughter would get straight answers from said daughter; I mean, we just wouldn't understand (and, very probably, we wouldn't).


I was going to mention the same thing. It's been a long time since I was 15, but I could easily see myself giving the same brush off to an older person. Like, how could they possibly understand?

The whole topic seems much ado about nothing. Most people like what they're used to. Age-old ageisms resurface and only the technological implements change names.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #40
I would more easily believe that said 15-year-old just didn't want to take the time to explain it. Whether because of embarrassment at what she's listening to, or the expectation that older people in general wouldn't understand, or simple impatience, or whatever. A large number of people would respond like that to a stranger no matter what their age.

She's also young enough to quite possibly not have any major music preferences. Some people are like that all their lives.

She could have also screwed up all the tags on her pirated MP3s, and thus, really doesn't know who is playing what.

I'm not sure which is funnier... considering LZ an example of metal, or or hardcore.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #41
I wonder if the popularity of MP3 among today's "youth" has little to do with music
It's because it's available (illegally) for free, is convenient, and is easily copied and given to friends.

It's like cassettes on steroids. Sound quality is irrelevant.


However, I'm sure music matters, in the same way(s) that it always did - some of the importance is related to the actual notes being played/sung!

Cheers,
David.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #42
This is what I posted as I reply to the original article, plus some additional thoughts...

Having recently acquired the Dead Can Dance MFSL remasters in Audiophile SACD editions, I can honestly say that there's nothing quite like the experience of listening to these masterpieces in a decent stereo system - I mean decent, not absurdly expensive (mine consists of a simple Technics amplifier and a pair of Jamo speakers, both 20 years old and a €250 Cambridge Audio DVD/SACD player). The sound is just immense, crystal clear and involving in a way that no compressed digital format comes ever even close! But at the same time, I enjoy listening to my home-made 256k/AAC tracks in my iPhone every day. Amidst all the noise of a working place or as background music while reading, they're perfectly fine. And quite convenient!
All this to say that each thing has its own place. One is not meant to replace the other, as the experience is clearly different (and whoever thinks it isn't, simply hasn't listened to music on a decent stereo system).

I'd add that, like others mentioned, younger generations have far more serious issues regarding music apprecitaion than preferring MP3s to high quality recordings. I believe Mike's conversation with that young kid (putting aside an awkward definition of Metal  ) quite accurately represents the worst about nowadays' musical "panorama". Most people simply don't care what they listen to. And it's not a matter of taste and other subjective (and pointless) considerations. It's really a matter of not caring at all. They're fed the mainstream radio playlists (which are all the same) or the illegal downloads of the latest mainstream hype and they're happy enjoying it for a couple of weeks until the next mainstream hype turns up and replaces the previous one on their iPods. Most of the times, most people don't even know what they're listening to! Why? Because their illegal MP3s don't carry the respective tags.

It's this apathy towards music and a disregard to any kind of knowledge about it that scares me.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #43
Audiophile SACD editions... The sound is just immense, crystal clear and involving in a way that no compressed digital format comes ever even close!

I realise that you're new around here, but I'd highly recommend that you read the Hydrogenaudio Terms Of Service (specifically TOS#8) before posting utter nonsense like this again... unless you were joking, of course.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #44
Most people simply don't care what they listen to. And it's not a matter of taste and other subjective (and pointless) considerations. It's really a matter of not caring at all. They're fed the mainstream radio playlists (which are all the same) or the illegal downloads of the latest mainstream hype and they're happy enjoying it for a couple of weeks until the next mainstream hype turns up and replaces the previous one on their iPods.

I disagree that this behavior is what people want. The entire music business is designed for this (maybe because people want it). This is even the way I listen to music nowadays, but I miss the care that were on the few musicians that did something special. I've been a long time lover of Michael Cretu's "Enigma" project, but it was never mainstream and this is one of the few artists that I dig up from my collection to play once in a while. Others probably exists, but I have no idea how to find those, because the music business are not designed for it! The only reason I even know Enigma today is that a friend of mine, bought the album of the one-hit-wonder "Return to innocence".
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #45
I wonder if the popularity of MP3 among today's "youth" has little to do with music



Actually, it has everything to do with music and just music. They want the music, whether its well-reproduced or not.

People my age lived in an era where the mainstream SQ was AM radio, played on 5 tube AC/DC receivers and transistor radios that sounded even worse.  Mainstream SQ was worn-out 45s played on the same crappy audio section and speakers, using a crystal cartridge and worn-out sapphire needle.

My first hand-me-down record player had a spring, a steel needle, and an acoustic reproducer.

There is simply nothing modern that compares with the horrid SQ of those days (late 1940s and early 1950s).

FM became part of the mainstream when I was in high school. But, the audio sections and speakers of mainstream FM radios was little better.

That leaves lots of listening to music in grade school and middle school that was as above.

BTW, the standard tubed output stage of the era was a SET (Single-Ended Tetrode). ;-)

Quote
It's because it's available (illegally) for free, is convenient, and is easily copied and given to friends.

It's like cassettes on steroids.


Speak of the devil! Cassette was really designed for about AM-radio quality, but with Dolby and metal tape, it could (very) roughly approximate LP and FM radio.

By the time I was in college component stereo and brown-goods audio were coming into the mainstream. The Vietnam era facilitated Pacific Rim producers  breaking into the U.S audio market with relatively high quality goods at more reasonable prices. LPs were frequently being reproduced near the practical limits of the medium, and people were dabbling with tape. It wasn't all that bad - but probably no better than 128 kbps MP3 done right.

Quote
Sound quality is irrelevant.


Sound quality is as a rule, so much higher than it ever was, if you have a true historical perspective.

Quote
However, I'm sure music matters, in the same way(s) that it always did - some of the importance is related to the actual notes being played/sung!


To non-audiophiles, that is simply how it is. You don't have to hear all the instruments to enjoy  music, just most of the notes of the basic tune. It is for sure that if you can hear all the instruments, the timbre need not exactly duplicate their live sound.



"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #46
Having recently acquired the Dead Can Dance MFSL remasters in Audiophile SACD editions, I can honestly say that there's nothing quite like the experience of listening to these masterpieces in a decent stereo system - I mean decent, not absurdly expensive (mine consists of a simple Technics amplifier and a pair of Jamo speakers, both 20 years old and a €250 Cambridge Audio DVD/SACD player). The sound is just immense, crystal clear and involving in a way that no compressed digital format comes ever even close!


That's where you run headlong into science.  There's nothing audible on a SACD that 44/16 (CD format) can reproduce with complete sonic accuracy. And, there's nothing audible on a SACD that high bitrate compressed formats can't reproduce with complete sonic accuracy.

Quote
It's this apathy towards music and a disregard to any kind of knowledge about it that scares me.


I somehow sense some mixup between music and audio.

Some of the people I know who are most engaged by music, such as composers, arrangers and performers, are surprisingly accepting of you and I would agree is poor quality reproduction. For example I have a good friend with a PhD in music who directs, composes and arranges all of the time. He often makes arrangements by downloading a low-bitrate MP3, transcribing it using a MIDI jkeyboard, and then basing his arrangements on that. I have another friend who is a widely respected singer in local venues, but she practices using cassette tapes or a CD being played on a boombox.

The point is that musicians can be remarkably non-critical of SQ. Depending on their exact situation, they need only be able to figure out the basics of the melody, or at most the major parts. They don't need to hear every note played by every instrument, and they don't need to hear the instruments with natural timbre. Some instruments, particularly high range percussion, are completely dispensibe for many purposes that musicans may have, and may even be distracting to them.

That's music! It is not what we'd call good audio, but is is music and the people that work at that level are knowlegable and highly engaged with the music.

"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #47
Audiophile SACD editions... The sound is just immense, crystal clear and involving in a way that no compressed digital format comes ever even close!

I realise that you're new around here, but I'd highly recommend that you read the Hydrogenaudio Terms Of Service (specifically TOS#8) before posting utter nonsense like this again... unless you were joking, of course.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 


Raving over Dead Can Dance SACD remasters amuses me for another reason: I have a few of the old CDs up to AION, and these were pretty frickin' amazing sounding as just plain old CDs. They were not 'loudness wars victim' CDs AFAIR.  Which brings up the question, why is a catalog deemed to be in 'need' of remastering in the first place?





"Sizzling sound" of mp3's is preferred

Reply #48
Which brings up the question, why is a catalog deemed to be in 'need' of remastering in the first place?

To squeeze money out of the gullible?

Cheers, Slipstreem. 


 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019