
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

I'm all about the mp3s now. Oddly, I'm more likely to buy vinyl now than I was when I was buying CDs. I don't know how far I believe this "warmer" sound they're suppose dto have, given that it's all going through the same amplification and speaker equipment. I just kind of like the whole retro thing.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:33, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

I guarantee that a blind hearing between vinyl, CD and high quality mp3 would show no difference.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:36, Reply)

I also strongly believe that all this guff about cables is so much bullshit. Sure, if you spend money on better equipment you'll hear a difference, but only to a point. Like everything else, it's subject to the law of diminishing returns. The cables you use won't fucking matter as long as you buy some with some decently made connectors.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:38, Reply)

sadly I didn't realise that the cable was so thick that I couldn't fit two lots of it into the connections on the back of my amp. So it was a bit of a waste.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:41, Reply)

Speakers, for example, are internally wired with pretty narrow guage wire, so any savings on signal you make with big, thick cable is going to be lost inside the speaker. Also, audio doesn't require much bandwidth, so you don't need thick cable to begin with. The only place you're likely to get signal degradation is through the connectors.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:48, Reply)

kkkKKKKkkkkkKKKkkkKKkkkKKkkkkkKKkkkkKkRrrRrRrrRRRrrrronEEeeeEEeeeeeeeEEeEEEEeEEEeeeeEEeeeeEEEeeeeEEEeEeEeEEey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:51, Reply)

I agree that "warmth" is a fairly meaningless way of describing it though.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:49, Reply)

and thus knows more about this than anyone on here ever will says it's blindingly obvious to him if he's listening to an MP3 as opposed to a record or reel-to-reel tape.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:48, Reply)

Tends to kill the treble. Depending on the quality of encoding, most people aren't going to be able to tell the difference, though, as a lot of it's outside the human hearing range anyway. Most consumer equipment does more damage to the signal than mere compression, so for the average person it's meaningless.
I do agree that compression would be no use whatsoever for reference quality stuff.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:53, Reply)

In order to try to make them louder for radio play. It tended to make everything sound a bit shit.
If you're interested in this sort of thing you should read Perfecting Sound Forever, by Greg Milner. It is surprising interesting for a subject that could easily be very dull.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:57, Reply)

Because a CDs got plenty of room on it, there's no actual need to compress the files.
As for whether I'm interested in it, I often wish I'd gone into sound engineering myself.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:02, Reply)

that's the mastering process where everything is compressed so every part of the sound wave is the same "loudness" and it's still going on to this day. It leads to all songs having no dynamic balance.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:06, Reply)

This picture show the same audio, the top one is compressed, the bottom one is the original file:

( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:11, Reply)

Which is annoying.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:14, Reply)

How was the weekend? As I recall, you were planning on getting totally muntered. Succeed?
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:56, Reply)

in which case it'll be more or less identical.
but you need a format other than mp3 for lossless compression.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 10:58, Reply)

I don't ask him for advice on good wine anymore because his tastes are so attuned to wine I'd end up spending £40 more than i would have and barely noticed a difference.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:03, Reply)

The only reason some wines get great write ups from famous wine critics is because the wine makers make wines that they know the critic will like. But that doesn't mean you would like them.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:07, Reply)

there's not an awful lot of profit in that
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:09, Reply)

but he is wrong. If you put him in a room with a reasonable quality seperates system and a VBR comrpessed mp3 vs a CD he couldn't tell the difference.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:04, Reply)

over that of a guy that regularly reads What Hi-Fi? I am including myself in that latter category.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:09, Reply)

but the effects of compression are completely negligible when listening through a bog standard hi-fi separates system.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:13, Reply)

Monty did say mp3 versus vinyl/reel to reel, though. Not mp3 vs CD.
Even so, if a guy that's spent however many years listening to sound for a living says there's a difference, I'd be inclined to believe him even if I personally can't hear it.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:15, Reply)

But the question is, can you hear that difference, and the answer is no. Unless, you are in a near perfect environment with a near perfect system. Since that situation will virtually never arise, the answer, to all intents and purposes, remains No.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:19, Reply)

and in his opinion, the difference in home quality cd/dvd/vinyl is so small, it's just not worth pissing about. It's only when you spend thousands, position your chair specifically, dampen the walls etc that you will notice a difference, but it all sounds a bit much effort.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:24, Reply)

which is why I have no respect at all for hifi aficionados that spend hundreds of pounds on equipment and cables for their house.
( , Mon 2 Jul 2012, 11:33, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread