MP3 is dead!

tonyb

BTW, I just want to state for the record, if MP3 is found dead someday......I didn't do it, and I know nuthin'.

mhardy6647

storage is unimaginably cheap today, from my (old-guy) perspective

In the early PC days, I put a 10 meg HDD in my AT&T PC6300 (Olivetti OEM -- kind of a cool machine with an Intel 8086, true 16 bit processor and nice 640 x 400 mono graphics; considerably better than the IBM PCs of the era) for something like $500 smackers in the early 1980s.

Now you can buy a 2 TB HDD for well less than 100 smackers; even the 0.5 (ish) TB SSDs are pretty inexpensive; got one in this laptop, in fact.

mhardy6647

1979



1983




source: www.radioshackcatalogs.com

voltz

MP3 is dead to me! I tossed all of the MP3's I had.

I don't care what the masses wants to hear. It's my Ears that count and I choose DSD SACD's & 24 bit when I am not playing my vinyl records. Most of my digital collecting is 16 bit/44 FLAC's but I'm working on changing that

Gatecrasher

I used to have both but now my library is all FLAC.

I haven't used MP3s in several years now.

lightman1

nbrowser wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BTW, I just want to state for the record, if MP3 is found dead someday......I didn't do it, and I know nuthin'.

uh the bags of concrete with molds for feet and lime dust I saw in your garage are making you look sooooooooo guilty!

See there, Ken... there's no molds for feet. You gotta get the mix right while they're knocked out. A smooth, quick dry slurry in a #10 tub will fit any shoe size......

Lime on the other hand... I defer to the pros. They do more landscaping than me.

tonyb

nbrowser wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BTW, I just want to state for the record, if MP3 is found dead someday......I didn't do it, and I know nuthin'.

uh the bags of concrete with molds for feet and lime dust I saw in your garage are making you look sooooooooo guilty!

Yeah well, it was intended for my daughters boyfriend....until she decided to marry the dude. Oh well....I'm sure other opportunities will arise to get that stuff out of the garage.

Just a side note too....while I have the concrete and lime....F1NUT has the boat, just sayin'....word has it he keeps cinder blocks and rope tucked away on there.

MP3's served it's audio purpose for the times it was needed. Today it's not needed, so why anyone who cares about audio would listen to it is beyond me.

mhardy6647

lightman1 wrote: »

nbrowser wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

BTW, I just want to state for the record, if MP3 is found dead someday......I didn't do it, and I know nuthin'.

uh the bags of concrete with molds for feet and lime dust I saw in your garage are making you look sooooooooo guilty!

See there, Ken... there's no molds for feet. You gotta get the mix right while they're knocked out. A smooth, quick dry slurry in a #10 tub will fit any shoe size......

Lime on the other hand... I defer to the pros. They do more landscaping than me.

The South Boston ("Southie") school of landscape design.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tophatjohnny

ahhh What??????????????????????????????????^^^^^^

mrbiron

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I miss Gary....

Nightfall

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

Vinyl Lps supposedly received a mortal wound in 1981 when the CD was introduced. Some are still astonished that people still listen to Lps.

There are millions of people that play high resolution Mp3s and stream at 160 kps to 320 kps and are very happy to do so. Spotify and Napster are two examples. They already have playback equipment and the convenience factor going for them. It is very easy to convert CDs to Mp3 and there is a huge amount of on the shelf content available in Mp3 format either free or at very affordable pricing. Mp3 also has the acceptance factor going for it. It is accepted by millions and millions of people as a very viable and quality audio format. The Mp3 should easily have another decade or two of life in it.

Mp3 may someday go the way of Lotus 1-2-3, but first we need a Microsoft Excel to come along and knock it off its perch. "You can't beat something with nothing."

As said, there are better sounding codecs that take less space than MP3 already like AAC.

Spotify uses OGG Vorbis not MP3. Pandora uses AAC+, I'm not sure if anyone uses MP3 anymore.

mhardy6647

well -- he certainly informed my sense of humor.
Heck, I can even listen to a low resolution MP3 -- and smile.



PS a cat, in the same situation, would do the same thing... but it'd be all snide and stuff when rescued.

mrbiron

I had this T-shirt growing up AND I still have 4 of his books.

steveinaz

MP3 = Windows 3.0

tonyb

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

Vinyl Lps supposedly received a mortal wound in 1981 when the CD was introduced. Some are still astonished that people still listen to Lps.

There are millions of people that play high resolution Mp3s and stream at 160 kps to 320 kps and are very happy to do so. Spotify and Napster are two examples. They already have playback equipment and the convenience factor going for them. It is very easy to convert CDs to Mp3 and there is a huge amount of on the shelf content available in Mp3 format either free or at very affordable pricing. Mp3 also has the acceptance factor going for it. It is accepted by millions and millions of people as a very viable and quality audio format. The Mp3 should easily have another decade or two of life in it.

Mp3 may someday go the way of Lotus 1-2-3, but first we need a Microsoft Excel to come along and knock it off its perch. "You can't beat something with nothing."

LP's still over a level of quality to sound that digital still can't replicate, but it's getting close. Mp3's as a "quality" format.....shouldn't be used in the same sentence. The old days, people converted cd's to MP3's for portable purposes and space issues, really is no need for that anymore. Why would anyone want to leave out bits of information in their music anyway, that's what MP3 does. From a sound quality perspective, MP3's are worthless in todays age. Sure, streaming services still use them mostly because of bandwidth issues but once that is finally conquered the death bell will ring. I don't think anyone is offering a music service for the 10 bucks a month in cd quality, people would flock to it. Even the Tidal 20 bucks is worth it, unless all you care about is background music for parties and such.

There's value to better sound, just like there's value to better anything like clothes/shoes/cars/appliances, etc. We all may not appreciate the better things in life, or have financial limitations to how much better of anything one can afford, but doesn't mean those better things should not be appreciated or sought after.

I have Napster, formally Rhapsody, myself, sound quality alone isn't great. I run it through my Cary dac and it sounds a lot better, but not like my own lossless music library. I use Napster for mostly background stuff or parties, where sound quality isn't as important. The difference is very noticeable on the main rig, not so much on the cheapo outside speakers and cheap Sony receiver playing them.

Different strokes for different folks and all that, but I for one would not equate MP3's with quality audio anything. It has it's purpose though, still, but that purpose is slowly diminishing.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

afterburnt

mhardy6647 wrote: »

1979



1983




source: www.radioshackcatalogs.com

I had a TRS 80 but my storage was a cassette recorder

afterburnt

I still use mp3 in the car. Either blew toof from my phone or sd card in the car slot but they do nothing but offend me otherwise

steveinaz

Convenience or quality....take your pick, but don't fool yourself for a millisecond that mp3 is an acceptable format for hi-fi systems.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tophatjohnny

Do tell.

tonyb

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

steveinaz wrote: »

Convenience or quality....take your pick, but don't fool yourself for a millisecond that mp3 is an acceptable format for hi-fi systems.

The study I read on the subject about 15 years ago compared the quality of Mp3 at various bit rates. I've heard audio lectures at 5 kps and the voice was still distinguishable, but a poor recording. At 64 kps the quality is much improved, but when the audience claps the sound got muddied. The study compared FM radio quality to 80 -96 kps Mp3. At 128kps, only a few people in 1,000 could distinguish the difference between Mp3 and Cds - 128kps was a common bit rate 10 years ago. The study also claimed that at 170kps and above no one could consistently distinguish between Mp3 and CDs. I've personally compared high bit rate Mp3 to many times over the last dozen years and now I've compared it to Flac files. I'll do so again later this summer and next year with some quality headphones. Mp3 gets much, much better at the higher bit rates.

You can find a study on anything, for or against ....pretty much anything. Rarely is there a consistent viewpoint especially in subjective areas like audio. If MP3's float your boat, rock on....use them and be happy.

Since we can agree MP3 gets much better at higher bitrates, then we should be able to agree CD quality or lossless files, which are even at higher bitrates, should then sound better, no ? Taking it further, SACD should then sound better than cd and so forth. Generally speaking obviously, because bitrates are not the only thing that makes or breaks good sound.

rooftop59

Most people can't tell the difference between a decent box of wine and a $100 napa cab either. Mostly that comes from a lack of experience and training. To tell the difference consistently you have to drink a lot of different wines at a lot of different price points, and not to get drunk but to savor the distinct qualities. And it helps most people to have someone explain to them what they are tasting at first. Slowly many (certainly not all) people will come to be able to discern the differences on their own. But many won't, either because they just don't have a discerning palate, or they don't care, or they can't afford to care. Does that mean there's no difference?

Same with MP3s. Most people can't tell the difference. Their system sucks, they have been exposed to anything better, and they don't care. Does that really mean that there is no difference?

K_M

steveinaz wrote: »

Convenience or quality....take your pick, but don't fool yourself for a millisecond that mp3 is an acceptable format for hi-fi systems.

Sure if you are talking MP3 at 128kbps from 2005.

Otherwise a huge generalization. I spent a few hours trying 320kbps MP3, on the latest codecs, against higher resolutions and even with headphones could not tell the difference, and a few times picked it as being superior!

Its come a long way in the last couple years even. Few years ago would agree though.

There are some great online tests only if you want to find out.

ZLTFUL

MP3s even at 320kbps sound "tinny" to me compared to the same song ripped from the same disc in WAV format.

An example is a back to back listen of Money for Nothing by Dire Straits where glaring differences are represented even on desktop computer speakers.

But then I can also tell the difference between a Malbec and Cab Sav.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

recoveryone

Its all going to come down to licensing agreements between the studios and artist. FLAC may be the best of both worlds, but its unlicensed and that is a big no no to the industry. Now if FLAC becomes license how much will it cost compared to MP3 (a consumer factor), we have to remember CD was and still better than most file formats but it lost out to portability, storage and cost not to better SQ.

cfrizz

People want to take their entertainment with them. So portability totally rules. SQ probably doesn't even make it onto anyone's radar unless you're a fanatic like you bunch.

And as stated, SQ has improved with the higher bit rates of mp3s, so most won't be able to tell the difference or care.

I love having all my tunes and books on my Samsung Note 2 phone so that I can tune out during my commute to and from work. Some songs sound better than others, but so long as it plays, that's all I care about.

Can I tell the difference between my mp3s/wavs on the smaller Samsung phone I have acting as my mp3 player vs my cd's? Yes, but being able to sit down at my pc to do whatever, rather than getting up ever 30-90 minutes to change a cd is priceless.

The bottom line for me is that I can rock out to either very easily, and that is all that is all that's important to me.

Different strokes for different folks, rock out whichever way makes you feel good.

K_M

tonyb wrote: »

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

steveinaz wrote: »

Convenience or quality....take your pick, but don't fool yourself for a millisecond that mp3 is an acceptable format for hi-fi systems.

The study I read on the subject about 15 years ago compared the quality of Mp3 at various bit rates. I've heard audio lectures at 5 kps and the voice was still distinguishable, but a poor recording. At 64 kps the quality is much improved, but when the audience claps the sound got muddied. The study compared FM radio quality to 80 -96 kps Mp3. At 128kps, only a few people in 1,000 could distinguish the difference between Mp3 and Cds - 128kps was a common bit rate 10 years ago. The study also claimed that at 170kps and above no one could consistently distinguish between Mp3 and CDs. I've personally compared high bit rate Mp3 to many times over the last dozen years and now I've compared it to Flac files. I'll do so again later this summer and next year with some quality headphones. Mp3 gets much, much better at the higher bit rates.

You can find a study on anything, for or against ....pretty much anything. Rarely is there a consistent viewpoint especially in subjective areas like audio. If MP3's float your boat, rock on....use them and be happy.

Since we can agree MP3 gets much better at higher bitrates, then we should be able to agree CD quality or lossless files, which are even at higher bitrates, should then sound better, no ? Taking it further, SACD should then sound better than cd and so forth. Generally speaking obviously, because bitrates are not the only thing that makes or breaks good sound.

Not necessarily. One truth does not automatically equate to another truth based on mere extrapolation.

All recordings can be extrapolated "down" to an equivalent bit rate.

The recording itself many times limits the final fidelity. Even though it may have been recorded to "High resolution digital" or High speed Open reel.
There may be "potential" for better sound, but very few recordings even push the envelope of CD quality sound.