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