IDM Mailing Archive

i just got a guy called gerald's 'black secret technology' on cd and it is an amazing album, but the sound quality seems really iffy. the first track the treble is ear piercing, and the cd slowly stabilizes to decent sounds, although it still sounds very poorly produced, with the treble sounding too sharp. it's not my eq either. after a bit of adjusting (with a mere 3 band) i can get it to sound ok, but it's still not great. i'm not an audiophile but there's definately something wrong here. anyone else's copy like this, or is it just mine? pity, it's the best album i've heard all year, and if its to be marred by lousy production work that just takes so much out of it... -- o _/,_ . /o...\__// fk453@cleveland.freenet.edu \_'__/``\` \`

mine sounds completely fine. mike ::Michel.Battaglia::::San.Francisco:California:::::mike@organic.com: ::mikebee@freenet.scri.fsu.edu::::http://organic.com/~mike::::::::::

On May 23, 6:11pm, Ryan G. Pals wrote:

quoted 1 line Subject: sound quality

> Subject: sound quality

quoted 5 lines i just got a guy called gerald's 'black secret technology' on cd and

> i just got a guy called gerald's 'black secret technology' on cd and > it is an amazing album, but the sound quality seems really iffy. the > first track the treble is ear piercing, and the cd slowly stabilizes > to decent sounds, although it still sounds very poorly produced, > with the treble sounding too sharp.

Welcome to the jungle. This is music made inside computers and samplers, with 2nd and 3rd generation samplers. Every sound is compressed and tweaked until it's tinny. Try it with a subwoofer though. They put a lot in the subsonic booms they use for kick drums. -- kent.williams@cadsi.com Have you ever thought about how liberating it would be to be a complete asshole and never have to worry about anyone else's feelings, needs or desires?

In a message from Ryan G. Pals

quoted 2 lines i just got a guy called gerald's 'black secret technology' on cd and

>i just got a guy called gerald's 'black secret technology' on cd and >it is an amazing album, but the sound quality seems really iffy.

I just got this the other day and agree that it is a remarkebly fine disc. I got it on vinyl and the sound quality was a lot better than some of the new releases I've got recently, Warp and Rising High have been paritcularly poor of late. Lots of love Tim One of the least common things in the world today is: common sense.

lol. "Try again please before forming opinions." Man, this list never ceases to amaze me. The horror, the horror..... rw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irene McC" <substar@iafrica.com> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:22 AM Subject: [idm] Sound quality

quoted 33 lines It was said previously:

> It was said previously: > > > Mp3 quality sucks anyway. > > What do you base this on? Your personal opinion? Your 'golden > ears'? What sort of playback facilities do you employ? > > Do you only listen to vinyl? If you do, I understand your reluctance > to embrace MP3's. But if you are used to CD's, which are purely a > digital format anyway, then MP3's are not that far removed in sound > quality. (Most of the music we are discussing here is digitally > manipulated to start with.) > > In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > @128kbps or higher. > > Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but > at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the > relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing. > > Try again please before forming opinions. > > I > * > np : Herbie Hancock - Dis is Da Drum (try this for funky beatz) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Interestingly I find a siimlar, yet distinctly different problem occuring nowadays. With the advent of Napster, the potential influx of music has become so enormous that I seemed to have the lost the fun of getting music like I used to. I used to buy a CD only once in while and immerse myself in it. After a month or two, I'd get another and the love affair would begin again... Now with Napster, I have a choice of so much music that non of it is really appealing anymore. Perhaps the arrival of Napster is just coincidental to my complete disgust with the glitch-dsp CRAP that seems to be the "talk of the town" on this list.(On another note, I truly wonder how many of you really like this noise shit, and how many of you are just afraid to get up and say that you hate it for fear of being chewed out.) Perhaps Napster has had an unintended effect of providing a sensory overload, and in doing so, will destroy the music scene through an unanticipated route - creation of pure apathy. For me, this dime-a-dozen, random glitch sounds shit doesn't help much - perhaps I'm not one to judge, but from the discussions and music touted on this list, IDM seems to have devolved into some extremely unintelligent gurglings. I expec this sort of "creative" copycatting from pop muisc not an alternative/pretty much non-lucrative subgenre. Sunspot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 8 lines Now with Napster, I have a choice of so much music that non of it

> > Now with Napster, I have a choice of so much music that non of it > is really appealing anymore. Perhaps the arrival of Napster is just > coincidental to my complete disgust with the glitch-dsp CRAP that seems > to be the "talk of the town" on this list.(On another note, I truly > wonder how many of you really like this noise shit, and how many of you > are just afraid to get up and say that you hate it for fear of being > chewed out.)

<stands up> i don't like a lot of the "dsp for the sake of dsp" stuff that's come out lately, since much of it sounds rather uninspired, in my opinion. to me, the most interesting "idm" as of late has been the stuff that hasn't been afraid of using "purer" sounds... actually, i suppose i've always sort of liked a "pure" element in at least some of the tracks i hear. aphex twin's "pancake lizard" was one of my early favorites, along with ae's "leterel". i had heard enough synth lines before i was even into idm, and most "dsp trickery" still revolves around a rather basic synthy sounding melody. it works, but it doesn't particularly interest me. of course, as a complete opposite to this point, richard devine's near lack of melody and total dsp-ism is done really well, mainly, i think, because of the constantly changing and seemingly random presentation, merged with a non-808 rhythm (and a total lack of cheezy kick drums) ;D i just ordered the just released and limited to 2000 pan american 12", and am looking forward to that. <sits down> cheers, /derek - - - - - Alice could not help her lips curing up into a smile as she began: "Do you know, I always thought Unicorns were fabulous monsters, too! I never saw one alive before!" "Well, now that we HAVE seen each other," said the Unicorn, "if you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 27 lines Interestingly I find a siimlar, yet distinctly different

> Interestingly I find a siimlar, yet distinctly different > problem occuring nowadays. With the advent of Napster, the > potential influx of music has become so enormous that I seemed > to have the lost the fun of getting music like I used to. I used > to buy a CD only once in while and immerse myself in it. After a > month or two, I'd get another and the love affair would begin again... > > Now with Napster, I have a choice of so much music that non > of it is really appealing anymore. Perhaps the arrival of Napster > is just coincidental to my complete disgust with the glitch-dsp > CRAP that seems to be the "talk of the town" on this list.(On > another note, I truly wonder how many of you really like this > noise shit, and how many of you are just afraid to get up and say > that you hate it for fear of being chewed out.) > > Perhaps Napster has had an unintended effect of providing a > sensory overload, and in doing so, will destroy the music scene > through an unanticipated route - creation of pure apathy. > For me, this dime-a-dozen, random glitch sounds shit doesn't help > much - perhaps I'm not one to judge, but from the discussions and > music touted on this list, IDM seems to have devolved into some > extremely unintelligent gurglings. I expec this sort of > "creative" copycatting from pop muisc not an alternative/pretty > much non-lucrative subgenre. > > Sunspot >

Naw. Napster has nothing to do with it. Mp3 quality sucks anyway. How could one fall in love affair with resin women? What delight do you expect from this barren mp3 quality? I hope you just have a period of music fatigue.. 8) It might happen with any thing in life... you'll be back to it with even more enthusiasm I'm sure... ..with respect to glitch dsp noise idm... hell yeah! I'm the one to tell that there's lots of muzak in idm these days and we have to dig into it much more deepeer to find what we seek...I'm hungry for more melodic stuff now for sure...I still don't like EP7 in comparison to my utter and complete love of their previous releases...and if the gems are hard to find, doesn't it make finding really brilliant stuff even more pleasing? I might be just too optimistic on that but I do agree with you and have a much bright view of the situation simultaneously.. 8) Alien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 6 lines It was said previously:

> It was said previously: > > > Mp3 quality sucks anyway. > > What do you base this on? Your personal opinion? Your 'golden > ears'? What sort of playback facilities do you employ?

Yes, I base it on my personal humble opinion. I've got normal ears but musical people who know me always told me that I'm not earless in musical sense... I employ Rotel amplifier 971 mkII and cd player 950 and B&W 603 S2 speakers with Golden Eagle cables which changed my opinion on quality of the music absolutely....Now I can listen to classical music and realise how great it is without going to the live concerts...the change in musical atmosphear and stereo panorama was astonishing....

quoted 5 lines Do you only listen to vinyl? If you do, I understand your reluctance

> Do you only listen to vinyl? If you do, I understand your reluctance > to embrace MP3's. But if you are used to CD's, which are purely a > digital format anyway, then MP3's are not that far removed in sound > quality. (Most of the music we are discussing here is digitally > manipulated to start with.)

No, unfortunately, I do not listen to vynil as i still have no money to buy a decent turntable. Though I've started to collect vynils already...8-)

quoted 3 lines In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to

> In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > @128kbps or higher.

mp3 128 does sound different from original source recording, greatly. I can hear that, though not always that clearly. the most effect it has is on the subconscious acceptance of atmosphear and panorama and on clarity of the higher frequencies...you can kill me for that anyway... I know people who say that they cannot tell cheap cassette player sound from Cd player....if I am sound quality snob then who are they?

quoted 3 lines Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but

> Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but > at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the > relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing.

mp3 192 and higher are good for me but I still would not compare them to originals as even after decompressing of mp3 192kbs and buring it on CD they sound differently...IMHO IMHO IMHO

quoted 1 line Try again please before forming opinions.

> Try again please before forming opinions.

that's one of the most outrageous things i've ever heard in my mails! if it would not be from you Irene, the person I do deeply respect and have a personal attachment to, I would say something really offensive... 8( what the hell is this list coming to if a person telling his personal opinion on the quality of a compressed music (which is worse than original in the every meaning of that fact of compression) gets offensive mails telling he's a snob? CD quality is bad because of the digital representation of the sound that has its own limitations but then how compressed CD sound can be good? ok. if you do not hear it - it's your opinion, I CAN hear that and I CLEARLY SAY THAT 128 kbs MP3 SOUND SUCKS IN COMPARISON TO ORIGINAL CDs....now you can call me snob one more time... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to

> In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > @128kbps or higher.

same thing with $100 cd players vs. $10,000 units. something like 8 out of 10 couldn't tell the difference. its amusing the lengths people will go to for feelings of superiority. im off to banana republic in my bimmer now to buy me some more clothes ;p --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to

> In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > @128kbps or higher.

At 128kbps I would be hard pushed to find a track that didn't sound different from source to mp3, I think those 'audiophile-type snobs' should find another hobby... however I certainly agree that at 256 (and in many cases 192) there is no discernable difference. On a related side note, I have found Cipater (1st track chiastic slide, as if anyone here doesn't know :) actually sounds better (in a way) in a poor quality 128k encode. I mean, its just so oily and grindy to begin with, the lofi nastiness seems to help it along :)

quoted 3 lines Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but

> Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but > at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the > relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing.

The problem is, most people (particularly in the napster community) seem to have no idea that there are different codecs, or for that matter, different bitrates! Of course, most people who download the files are in the same boat as the encoders, which is where the myth of "mp3 sucks" comes from... I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the 'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out there... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

i have been compressing everything i encode to 44 Khz and 192 Kbps and i find it to be nigh on indistinguishable from CD source material ... every once in a while there will be a sparkley high frequency noise that exhibits a bit of aliasing but wtf it's compressed to about 10% of the original size of the soundfile so how can you complain? vinyl sound quality is another story of course, but it's pretty inconvenient to operate a record player while i drive :) joshx -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, shipman wrote:

quoted 32 lines In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to

> > In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > > @128kbps or higher. > > At 128kbps I would be hard pushed to find a track that didn't sound > different from source to mp3, I think those 'audiophile-type snobs' should > find another hobby... however I certainly agree that at 256 (and in many > cases 192) there is no discernable difference. > On a related side note, I have found Cipater (1st track chiastic slide, as > if anyone here doesn't know :) actually sounds better (in a way) in a poor > quality 128k encode. I mean, its just so oily and grindy to begin with, the > lofi nastiness seems to help it along :) > > > Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but > > at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the > > relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing. > > The problem is, most people (particularly in the napster community) seem to > have no idea that there are different codecs, or for that matter, different > bitrates! > Of course, most people who download the files are in the same boat as the > encoders, which is where the myth of "mp3 sucks" comes from... > I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the > 'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out there... > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

it seems that there is a new mp3 codec coming along, that will cut down file size in half, or make a 128kbps encoded mp3 sound just that much richer... http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/12/mp3.pro.idg/index.html Greg Malcolm Digital Audio Engineer/Multimedia http://www.ontimetraining.com 330.422.2028x163 gmalcolm@ontimetraining.com

quoted 37 lines From: "shipman" <xen@i4free.co.nz>

>From: "shipman" <xen@i4free.co.nz> >To: <idm@hyperreal.org> >Subject: Re: [idm] Sound quality >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:00:38 +1300 > > > In blind testing using audiophile-type snobs, they were *unable* to > > tell apart the original source recording from an MP3 encoded > > @128kbps or higher. > >At 128kbps I would be hard pushed to find a track that didn't sound >different from source to mp3, I think those 'audiophile-type snobs' should >find another hobby... however I certainly agree that at 256 (and in many >cases 192) there is no discernable difference. >On a related side note, I have found Cipater (1st track chiastic slide, as >if anyone here doesn't know :) actually sounds better (in a way) in a poor >quality 128k encode. I mean, its just so oily and grindy to begin with, the >lofi nastiness seems to help it along :) > > > Sure, it depends on codecs, algorhythms and other nice words, but > > at the end of the day if there is a happy confluence of all the > > relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing. > >The problem is, most people (particularly in the napster community) seem to >have no idea that there are different codecs, or for that matter, different >bitrates! >Of course, most people who download the files are in the same boat as the >encoders, which is where the myth of "mp3 sucks" comes from... >I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the >'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out >there... > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper hi-fi: a Marantz amp with Tannoy M1 speakers. It lets me hear so much detail that I had to re-listen to everything I own just to see what I had been missing. On the mp3 thing, I personally can hear the difference between 128kpbs mp3s and the original CD tracks, and I don't feel that I have especially good ears. The difference varies depending on the source material, but it's definitely there. 160kbps is a much better setting for me, and 256kpbs sounds perfect. Don't forget BTW, that a 128kbps stereo mp3, is actually two audio channels (left and right) at 64kbps linked together. um, all strictly IMO. G-love. http://www.gram.org.uk

quoted 11 lines Konstantin Minko wrote:

> Konstantin Minko wrote: > > mp3 128 does sound different from original source > recording, greatly. I can > hear that, though not always that clearly. the most > effect it has is on the > subconscious acceptance of atmosphear and panorama > and on clarity of the > higher frequencies...you can kill me for that > anyway... >

____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:33:26PM +0000, Medium Graham wrote:

quoted 4 lines I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper

> I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper > hi-fi: a Marantz amp with Tannoy M1 speakers. It lets > me hear so much detail that I had to re-listen to > everything I own just to see what I had been missing.

Yea.. It's really crazy how much better things can sound than people think. I grew up with my Aiwa shelf system and then finally got a decent stereo and it's crazy how much better things are. And now my dad bought an awesome stereo (bastard had to wait until I moved out) comprised of B&W and Eosone speakers... It's just scary how good it sounds. -- :: atomly :: atomly@atomly.com | atomly@atdot.org | atomly@curiousnetworks.com http://www.atomly.com | http://www.mp3.com/atomly --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

yeah...I own part of a soundsystem...so I have a pair of EV Eliminators hooked up to my turntables...I dunno how I even listened to music before...the only problem is, I recently moved into an apartment complex from my comfy house...and now I have these big speakers that I have to play quietly, d'oh! josh23 --- atomly <atomly@atomly.com> wrote:

quoted 31 lines On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:33:26PM +0000, Medium

> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:33:26PM +0000, Medium > Graham wrote: > > I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first > proper > > hi-fi: a Marantz amp with Tannoy M1 speakers. It > lets > > me hear so much detail that I had to re-listen to > > everything I own just to see what I had been > missing. > > Yea.. It's really crazy how much better things can > sound than people > think. I grew up with my Aiwa shelf system and then > finally got a > decent stereo and it's crazy how much better things > are. And now my dad > bought an awesome stereo (bastard had to wait until > I moved out) > comprised of B&W and Eosone speakers... It's just > scary how good it > sounds. > > -- > :: atomly :: > > atomly@atomly.com | atomly@atdot.org | > atomly@curiousnetworks.com > http://www.atomly.com | http://www.mp3.com/atomly > > >

---------------------------------------------------------------------

quoted 5 lines To unsubscribe, e-mail:

> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > idm-help@hyperreal.org >

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

It depends always of the type of music you are listening. Example given: for me Autechre can not be listen with bitrates below 256 kbps, while other musics like bossanova may be listen with 96 kbps. When I code audio to mp3 I always use the option flexible bitrate... regards Cesar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Medium Graham" <medium_graham@yahoo.co.uk> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:33 PM Subject: RE: [idm] Sound quality

quoted 49 lines I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper

> I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper > hi-fi: a Marantz amp with Tannoy M1 speakers. It lets > me hear so much detail that I had to re-listen to > everything I own just to see what I had been missing. > > On the mp3 thing, I personally can hear the difference > between 128kpbs mp3s and the original CD tracks, and I > don't feel that I have especially good ears. The > difference varies depending on the source material, > but it's definitely there. 160kbps is a much better > setting for me, and 256kpbs sounds perfect. > > Don't forget BTW, that a 128kbps stereo mp3, is > actually two audio channels (left and right) at 64kbps > linked together. > > um, all strictly IMO. > > G-love. > > http://www.gram.org.uk > > > Konstantin Minko wrote: > > > > mp3 128 does sound different from original source > > recording, greatly. I can > > hear that, though not always that clearly. the most > > effect it has is on the > > subconscious acceptance of atmosphear and panorama > > and on clarity of the > > higher frequencies...you can kill me for that > > anyway... > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk > or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, [iso-8859-1] C?sar Laia wrote:

quoted 5 lines It depends always of the type of music you are listening.

> It depends always of the type of music you are listening. > > Example given: for me Autechre can not be listen with bitrates below 256 > kbps, while other musics like bossanova may be listen with 96 kbps. When I > code audio to mp3 I always use the option flexible bitrate...

I used variable bitrate encoding for quite some time (Through Audio Catalyst). The range of the bitrate was from 96-160, usally sitting around 128. I could tell the difference between that and CD Quality. I recently changed to encoding everything into 256 kbps and now cannot tell the difference. There seems to be a, how do I describe it, a 'wideness' of sound with 256 that 128 does not have.

quoted 3 lines regards

> regards > > Cesar

---------- Jordan Koch http://www.digitalnoise.net "Teacher: "Conan, What is best in life?" Conan: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women."" -- Conan the Barbarian "We are not retreating - we are advancing in another Direction." - General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I still dont believe people that tel me they can tell how good an encode is

quoted 1 line 128 or so.

> 128 or so.

Personally, audio cassete tape quality would be fine. as long as i can hear the music. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 12 lines relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing.

>relevant bits of technology, the result should be sweet and pleasing. > >The problem is, most people (particularly in the napster community) seem to >have no idea that there are different codecs, or for that matter, different >bitrates! >Of course, most people who download the files are in the same boat as the >encoders, which is where the myth of "mp3 sucks" comes from... >I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the >'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out >there... > >

I'm all for this, although I have a 20 gig hard drive and a t1 line. :) Ebola np: Red Hot Chili Peppers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

listen to Bang and Olafsen's audio equipment...it's incredible, but definitely not so incredible that it warrants multi-thousand dollar price tags per piece. $15,000 CD player? I'll stick with my JVC. $6000 for a 12" amplified subwoofer? Hmmm. They have a wooden 20-CD box that mounts on a wall or sits on a table...damn thing costs $450. Another aluminum CD-rack that holds 150 discs is over the $1000 mark.

quoted 30 lines ----------

> ---------- > From: atomly > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:38 AM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] Sound quality > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:33:26PM +0000, Medium Graham wrote: > > I nearly cried with joy when I bought my first proper > > hi-fi: a Marantz amp with Tannoy M1 speakers. It lets > > me hear so much detail that I had to re-listen to > > everything I own just to see what I had been missing. > > Yea.. It's really crazy how much better things can sound than people > think. I grew up with my Aiwa shelf system and then finally got a > decent stereo and it's crazy how much better things are. And now my dad > bought an awesome stereo (bastard had to wait until I moved out) > comprised of B&W and Eosone speakers... It's just scary how good it > sounds. > > -- > :: atomly :: > > atomly@atomly.com | atomly@atdot.org | atomly@curiousnetworks.com > http://www.atomly.com | http://www.mp3.com/atomly > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

B&O's appeal (and sticker price) partially derives from its cachet as being something that's designed in Scandanavia. Wallpaper sez thumbs up (well, probably not but oh well). -rob On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Jesse McCoppin wrote:

quoted 3 lines listen to Bang and Olafsen's audio equipment...it's incredible, but

> listen to Bang and Olafsen's audio equipment...it's incredible, but > definitely not so incredible that it warrants multi-thousand dollar price > tags per piece. $15,000 CD player? I'll stick with my JVC. $6000 for a

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

B&O's price is stipulated by their exlusive and futurustic design and is intened for nouveau riches and the likes...imho...if you want to find the real quality instead you should refer to more serious brands which charge only for the quality not for design... Alien np. Kodo - Irodori

quoted 26 lines -----Original Message-----

> -----Original Message----- > From: R. Lim [mailto:rlim@escape.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:00 AM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: RE: [idm] Sound quality > > > B&O's appeal (and sticker price) partially derives from its cachet as > being something that's designed in Scandanavia. Wallpaper sez thumbs up > (well, probably not but oh well). > > -rob > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Jesse McCoppin wrote: > > > listen to Bang and Olafsen's audio equipment...it's incredible, but > > definitely not so incredible that it warrants multi-thousand > dollar price > > tags per piece. $15,000 CD player? I'll stick with my JVC. > $6000 for a > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the

>I can't help but feel that if the makers of encoding software set the >'default' at 256kbps we'd see a lot more high quality mp3 files out there... >

And the sizes of the files would balloon up. Poor li'l 56k'ers like me would die! :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I dunno, I've heard B&O's from the 70s that sound amazing 30 years on, really nice clear full definition of sound lows mids & highs(thru B&W speakers), certainly they probably tack on a few grand for the audiophile n design wankery, but i think they sound pretty decent. Also for design trickery they did have preset FM radio channels on their receiver/amps in the early 60s. Also their record players play 16 & 78... But yeah, some people in the US think Ikea is the greatest thing since sliced bread so go figure, it just seems like regular furniture to me -i --- "R. Lim" <rlim@escape.com> wrote:

quoted 17 lines B&O's appeal (and sticker price) partially derives from its cachet as

> B&O's appeal (and sticker price) partially derives from its cachet as > being something that's designed in Scandanavia. Wallpaper sez thumbs up > (well, probably not but oh well). > > -rob > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Jesse McCoppin wrote: > > > listen to Bang and Olafsen's audio equipment...it's incredible, but > > definitely not so incredible that it warrants multi-thousand dollar price > > tags per piece. $15,000 CD player? I'll stick with my JVC. $6000 for a > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org