The dichotomy of our hobby..

dudeinaroom

fatchowmein wrote: »

You can save wave files on the iPod. Mp3 is a compression, lossy technology.....

Another thing a lot of people don't know about mp3s is that there is more to it than bit rate. I've heard 320kbps mp3 that sound worse than 64kbps. The reason is the codec can be set to encode the file one of 3 different ways most of the garblely sounding ones are encoded using joint stereo which will take any information that is the same in both channels and make it one channel and keep the differences separated so you basically you end up with a l-r/ch that plays on the left r-l/ch that plays on the right and a mono that plays on both. The end result is a crappy file(in most cases) that is smaller. The next setting is stereo which does the same but to a lesser degree. It sounds better, and is the majority of the better sounding mp3s you hear. Lastly you have dual mono which preserves all of the left and right separation and is the superior choice. It also results in a bigger file size because of not discarding information that is the same. So if your looking at mp3s to download and you have picked to go with one that is 320 kbps and all have close if not the same length(time) go for the one that has the biggest file size because it is either stereo or dual mono, but the dual mono will always sound better

fatchowmein

dudeinaroom wrote: »

Another thing a lot of people don't know about mp3s is that there is more to it than bit rate. I've heard 320kbps mp3 that sound worse than 64kbps. The reason is the codec can be set to encode the file one of 3 different ways most of the garblely sounding ones are encoded using joint stereo which will take any information that is the same in both channels and make it one channel and keep the differences separated so you basically you end up with a l-r/ch that plays on the left r-l/ch that plays on the right and a mono that plays on both. The end result is a crappy file(in most cases) that is smaller. The next setting is stereo which does the same but to a lesser degree. It sounds better, and is the majority of the better sounding mp3s you hear. Lastly you have dual mono which preserves all of the left and right separation and is the superior choice. It also results in a bigger file size because of not discarding information that is the same. So if your looking at mp3s to download and you have picked to go with one that is 320 kbps and all have close if not the same length(time) go for the one that has the biggest file size because it is either stereo or dual mono, but the dual mono will always sound better

Yep, that's why it's always better to encode your own stuff.

fatchowmein

Zero,
That was incredibly eloquent and insightful.

treitz3

I see more now why Polk Audio is trying to be in the particular market they are in. They want to sell a speaker that at it's price point, holds it's own and would be hard to beat. They do not want to go high end because that's not what they are about. They are about introducing a product that can give folks that have not heard a good system yet, the chance to hear one on a real world budget.

It has been relayed to me that Polk Corp. is fine with this. This is the market they want to corner. "Once you have gone beyond Polk", we have done our job and we are comfortable with that.. With what Zero said, Polk is doing a great job with keeping HI-FI alive, introducing folks to the experience that good sound does exist without breaking the bank. With out companies like Polk to do this, how else is the mainstream going to be introduced to the high end side of sound?

Don't get me wrong, good things are coming from Polk Corporation. The subject of this thread just made me think that maybe they are doing the audiophile world a greater justice than I once realized.

reeltrouble1

Indication is there are radical people in the music making industry who express their vision of future music media as some sort of pay as you go thing. A large reduction or even elimination of what has already been coined "physical music media" would be the goal, this end already having been partially realized, whether the resulting user term-leased media will sound any good is not the highest/first priority, perhaps one day market concerns about how this media sounds will become important, perhaps not. Just not alot of money in allowing a music medium that can last decades and can be given away to friends and family etc. without them paying for it to survive.

Of course everthing is countered by those on the flip side, who feel the quality of sound is most important, whether purchased physically or leased.

One thing is for sure, its going to be quite a show. I think I will just get in a favorite chair with some popcorn click on some tunes and enjoy the music along with the rest of hub-bub. I figure as long as folks attend live music venues and children learn to play musical instruments some of them will care about how well their home systems reproduce the sounds they remember, resulting in someone making a decent sounding soft or hard medium which they will sell you.

RT1

shawn474

RT1,
You bring uo an interesting point that music as we know it will most likely be drastically altered sooner rather than later. If you can get Rolling Stone, check out the 40th anniversary edition. They interview a number of influential musicians and ask them about the state of the world as they see it (really not intersted in hearing that) and the state of the music industry. A lot of them answer with the "it is what it is" answer; that all things are subject to change and they don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. Dave Matthews brings up the point that with all of the technology today, he wrote and recorded a song in less than a day and had it online for his fans; something that would have been impossible to do even five or ten years ago. He was able to get all of the instruments mixed, background vocals , etc. off of his computer and make the song. Previously, he would have had all of the musicians in studio, background singers in studio, etc. I can't help but feel that this type of recording can't possibly be as good as the "real thing".

I hate paying 15 bucks for a cd, but realize that it is my choice. But, if I have to go on-line and pay per song for crappy quality, I'd hate that even more.

Shawn

TroyD

Personally, I feel this thread as a classic example of an older generation fearing that its successors will not carry the torch. Often times the participants that represent the ‘old school’ feel that ‘kids these days’, who always seem to lack regard for sound quality, will be the generation to kill off hi-fi as we know it.

Point.................................................................................................Zero

Eloquent post, but it has nothing to do with my original point.

My point has VERY little to do with age or hardware.

Lemme try and dumb this down even more.

In the past, in an audio system........innovation and the quest for higher fidelit has always been based on the premise that the GEAR was the weak link.

Simply put, the better the gear the more information you could extract from the grooves.

IF (and I think that it's not a leap of faith to think this) low resolution becomes the 'standard'.....where does that put the hobby? It's like trying to enhance a low resolution digital picture...at a certain point, it looks WORSE because the resolution just ain't there. Does that analogy make sense?

In our current our paradigm, the gear is the weak link. IF that paradigm shifts to low resolution media becoming the standard, what does that mean to audio?

Now, I KNOW that we are a niche market and that there will always be someone to provide material on a higher fidelity format. My question IS will there be enough 'high quality' sound out there to A. sustain the hobby and B. attract new people in to the hobby.

My interest is not in the ultra-high end because, as I've said that is an even more niche market and the extremely well heeled folks will float it as higher costs aren't generally a factor at that end of the spectrum.

My concern is mid-fi to upper mid fi. To me, mp3 is crap on my rig. To me, mp3 sounds like crap....and my thought is that the most vulnerable is the market in which we reside. mp3 can't merit my level of gear.....take away the readily available material on a high resolution medium and I see that market collapsing. I'm not saying that it WILL, I'm just saying it's a possibility and I don't see anyone even thinking about the paradigm shifting in that direction.

Just my thoughts.

BDT

treitz3

TroyD wrote: »

Point... My question IS will there be enough 'high quality' sound out there to A. sustain the hobby and B. attract new people in to the hobby.

For those who missed the point.

cfrizz

The kids of today, will grow up to the adults of tomorrow who will be settled, have more income, & want a good system in their home. They will put together said system.

By that time the crap of mp3's will have improved dramatically due to technology & sound just fine on new system.

TroyD

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I figure as long as folks attend live music venues and children learn to play musical instruments some of them will care about how well their home systems reproduce the sounds they remember, resulting in someone making a decent sounding soft or hard medium which they will sell you.

RT1

How many people of us hear any sort of (decent) live music on some type of regular basis?

Today, if we go listen to ANYTHING is blaring loud, **** music in an arena rock concert or a band in a noisy bar. I'd daresay that there are DAMN few that listen to high quality, UNAMPLIFIED music in a decent setting. Me? If I get to the symphony a few times a year, I'm lucky.

So what happens now, a kid takes music THEY LIKE on a CD (which is a medium of decent resolution) and plays it on a high quality system. Kid gets digs the sound and the seed of hifi is planted.

Switch that up. Kid plugs is mp3 player onto his old mans rig (assuming that's even possible but for the sake of argument it is)...and the rig exposes the flaws in the recording and probably sounds WORSE than it does on his headphones or computer speakers (that) are not capable of resolving the inherent weakness in the format. How do you, then, plant the seed?

Sure, a few will dig listening to what they old man digs but if it doesn't make what they listen to sound better....there ain't much point in it.

This is where I think Zero is wrong.....I DON'T think that the industry is thinking about/preparing for this. Not from what I've seen, anyway.

BDT

treitz3

Good point. It's a shame, but what can we do?

Systems

TroyD wrote: »

Point.................................................................................................Zero

Eloquent post, but it has nothing to do with my original point.

My point has VERY little to do with age or hardware.

Lemme try and dumb this down even more.

In the past, in an audio system........innovation and the quest for higher fidelit has always been based on the premise that the GEAR was the weak link.

Simply put, the better the gear the more information you could extract from the grooves.

IF (and I think that it's not a leap of faith to think this) low resolution becomes the 'standard'.....where does that put the hobby? It's like trying to enhance a low resolution digital picture...at a certain point, it looks WORSE because the resolution just ain't there. Does that analogy make sense?

In our current our paradigm, the gear is the weak link. IF that paradigm shifts to low resolution media becoming the standard, what does that mean to audio?

Now, I KNOW that we are a niche market and that there will always be someone to provide material on a higher fidelity format. My question IS will there be enough 'high quality' sound out there to A. sustain the hobby and B. attract new people in to the hobby.

My interest is not in the ultra-high end because, as I've said that is an even more niche market and the extremely well heeled folks will float it as higher costs aren't generally a factor at that end of the spectrum.

My concern is mid-fi to upper mid fi. To me, mp3 is crap on my rig. To me, mp3 sounds like crap....and my thought is that the most vulnerable is the market in which we reside. mp3 can't merit my level of gear.....take away the readily available material on a high resolution medium and I see that market collapsing. I'm not saying that it WILL, I'm just saying it's a possibility and I don't see anyone even thinking about the paradigm shifting in that direction.

Just my thoughts.

BDT

I completely agree and you make complete sense. Mp3 sounds great on every system I have except the big one, you turn it up a little bit and mp3 (and I recorded them at 192 to 320) really sounds bad. I recently switched to Wav even with the ability to not save tags because its sooo much better.

TroyD

See, and that's my point. You take an LP or a CD and you put it on a better system...and the sound will improve.

The reverse is true with mp3 or low resolution.

We can speculate that, well, some people will come around...and to an extent, that is true BUT who gets the shaft? We do. The lower end of the hobby will be unaffected because they haven't hit the law of diminishing returns with an mp3. The ultra-high end will always exist just because it can. Wealthy people will always insist on the best because they can and cost is not an issue. No, the folks who get screwed is us in the middle.

I don't see what we CAN do. When the midfi/upper midfi companies can't sell anything because it sounds worse with 'standard' media......they go out of business. Period. End of story.

Again, if the present trend continues.....the paradigm shifts. Not overnight but in the next decade or so.

BDT

MGPK

So what happens now, a kid takes music THEY LIKE on a CD (which is a medium of decent resolution) and plays it on a high quality system. Kid gets digs the sound and the seed of hifi is planted.

Switch that up. Kid plugs is mp3 player onto his old mans rig (assuming that's even possible but for the sake of argument it is)...and the rig exposes the flaws in the recording and probably sounds WORSE than it does on his headphones or computer speakers (that) are not capable of resolving the inherent weakness in the format. How do you, then, plant the seed?

---

If the kid likes the way CD's sound on a good rig, he will inquire as to why it sounds good and his lifelong curse of upgraditis begins...

If the kid dislikes the way mp3's sound like on a good rig, he will inquire as to why it sounds bad and his lifelong curse of upgraditis begins...

Most people in this hobby have inquiring minds. But have to show initial interest before going down this long road.

madmax

Here lately I've been listening to all sorts of really great dixieland and other old recordings. People who can actually sing, play instruments and react on a "live" basis while recording without digital technology to make them sound good.

Troy, we have already hit **** media. It has more to do with the content from the 80's on up than MP3's. It happened as music became more about a "presentation" than playing music.
madmax

treitz3

madmax wrote: »

Troy, we have already hit **** media.

I was waiting for someone to come out and say it. You are so correct, it's NOT funny.

MGPK

It happened as music became more about a "presentation" than playing music.

---

More like music becoming "product".

madmax

Of course there are still good musicians putting out good music, just not a lot of it.

The other thing that bugs me is that everyone is going totally digital because it allows them to do a LOT in a short amount of time fairly cheaply. The only problem I see with this is that the overall quality suffers some percentage compared to the older 2" tape. Again, if presentation is your goal then digital is the way to go on this stuff.
madmax


Edit: I guess I should look up "dichotomy" since I don't know its meaning. Maybe tomorrow, I'm feeling a little lazy today.

treitz3

Zero wrote: »

This fundamental has not been changed - and will not be affected by mp3..........You get into it because somewhere along the lines; you had an experience. Despite the wide scale embrace of this compromise – it does not in any way negate a person’s ability to appreciate or desire high quality audio once they’ve been exposed to it.

But if the introduction to HI-Fi is MP3, where would the seed be planted? It's simply not high fidelity. If I was unexposed to HI-FI and had a chance to hear/listen to MP3 on a high rez rig, no seed would be planted. Hence Troy's point. No?

Zero wrote: »

I don’t believe that the mp3 is our greatest threat.

No, otherwise cassettes and other formats would have "doomed" the industry.

Zero wrote: »

Instead, I believe the largest threat that high fidelity audio has to confront is a change in lifestyle. It’s not just about the medium itself. It’s more about time, money, and exposure – three things which rarely coincide anymore.

This statement leads me back to "convenience = compromise in sound". That is a threat to the industry. For those that don't know, it may shut the door before it even opens. That's the problem.

Another problem is that the recording industry, from what I understand, has adapted the recordings to suit the convenience formats and not true reproduction at it's best.

That's the real shame.:eek:

treitz3

If SACD was a industry standard [even for convenience], I believe we would not be having this discussion. Then again, would they still be recording the same way?

jakelm

The Past:

Good gear, hard to find. Excetional recordings, easy to find.

The Present:

Good gear, easy to find. Exceptional recordings, hard to find.

Yes there are lossless programs to use in recording, but lossless of what? A bad original?

The light at the end of the tunnel is, HD DVD. Believe it or not. Its 2 channel audio that is loosing interest. A/V HomeTheater HiFi, is the future. Audio and video combined is taking over. Reason: Because it can. SACD, DVD-A, although never really caught on, is using thet HT, to project its advancments in HiFi. No more 2 channel recordings in the HiFi system (unless its vinyl), all have gone to DD, DTS, DD+, TrueHD, etc..all 5.1/7.1 audio.

Great audio is not lost (by far). Its just not your daddy's 2 channel system anymore.

reeltrouble1

Have faith BDT, I see lots of young ones learning how to make musical sounds and of course even younger ones digging vinyl for the sound as well as the cool art work, for every trend there is a substantial counter trend. There are many fine musical instruments that are amplified as well as acoustic to hear but I am not going to say that just because an artist uses amplification its automatically a bad thing, Federal Offense uses both and we would not be a bad place for someone to start having a reference.

As far as that noisy bar band well the local strip club still has some other redeeming features.......

RT1

treitz3

Zero wrote: »

Unless I am reading this wrong (which is possible), it seems that this ‘point’ is built upon the loose foundation that compressed files will one day dominate the market. I will say this much; if the day ever comes to where the racks chalk full of CD’s at Best Buy disappear in favor for computers with downloadable mp3 content – I too will share grave concerns over how Hi-Fi will continue to survive on any meaningful level. Then, I will realize Troy’s ‘point’.

What an enjoyable conversation. No, you are not reading me wrong. It may be a loose foundation as you say [is it?], but it seems more and more that this is becoming the norm for recordings. How to get them optimized for substandard audiophile [convenience] purposes, that is.

I think, and I may be wrong here, but the industry does seem to be headed in the direction of convenience and not absolute sound, as it once was.

Here you go, madmax, here is the definition as presented by Merriam-Webster...


Main Entry:
di·chot·o·my Listen to the pronunciation of dichotomy
Pronunciation:
\dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural di·chot·o·mies
Etymology:
Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
Date:
1610

1: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>2: the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated3 a: bifurcation; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem) b: a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches c: branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches4: something with seemingly contradictory qualities <it's a dichotomy, this opulent Ritz-style luxury in a place that fronts on a boat harbor — Jean T. Barrett>

Note that which is in bold. Convenience -vs- the search for accurate reproduction of sound. Two separate worlds and this is what Troy is trying to discuss [me also] before, as you mentioned, "grave concerns over how Hi-Fi will continue to survive on any meaningful level" takes a further toll on higher fidelity. The gear for HI-FI might be available, but if the source isn't up to par, then you can't make chicken soup out of chicken ****. No what I mean?

Hence the dichotomy.

treitz3

TroyD wrote: »

......While I have no issue with low resolution (hey, I like my iPod too)....the proliferation of it has, IMHO, dangerous consequences for the pursuit of high fidelity and I don't think the industry is catching on to it.

The hobby is suffocating itself......

This is the foreseeable problem / issue that is worrysome.

sbpolk

One thing I haven't been able to pin down... At what point are you able to discern where you lie?

Where am I? If the dichotomy exists, I must be on one side or another.

I have:

Polk LSi15, LSiC, LC65i(x4) dedicated theater
Emotiva LMC-1 Pre
Emotiva MPS-1 7x300 @4ohm Amp
PS3 for Blu-ray/music storage
Toshiba HD-XA2 for HD-DVD
XBOX 360 for fun
Optoma HD70 on 120" screen.

Obviously my primary focus is HT, and good HT at that. I don't own a single LP, SACD, or or DVD-Audio Disk. Don't own all that many CDs either. I do enjoy music though, and hope to expand my horizons some. In fact, I have started to do so. I heard some AMAZING music on a $50k plus B&W/CLASSE system that I really enjoyed.

The reality? I don't spend time much just sitting and listening to music. I enjoy a good concert DVD, but I need to SEE to really enjoy what I HEAR.

So, where do I fit? Mid-FI? Low Hi-Fi? Neither, because my focus is quality HT?

treitz3

sbpolk wrote: »

Neither, because my focus is quality HT?

The answer is within the question.

treitz3

hearingimpared wrote: »

I have some high performance vinyl reissues of Green Day for instance that absolutely sounds like **** because it is so compressed, why they put that to 180 gm vinyl is beyond me. I have the four LP set of Stadium Arcadium by the Red Hot Chile Peppers and it sounds even worse. I think the problem is at the source, the recording studios. If you make a compressed master, that music will never sound good.

This is what I'm talking about. Why? It used to be like the Maxxell poster, the music "blew you away". Not really, but hopefully you get our point. If the recordings are bad, then how is the industry supposed to "NOT" have their pants down when John Q. Public wants better sound? It seems as if they will because they are focusing on convenience.

Better sound starts with the recording, engineering and other factors for high fidelity reproduction. The end result should be accurately [as much as possible for technology today] reproduced through your high end rig, low end rig, or mid end rig.

Not just on computer speakers or earphones.

TroyD

Zero wrote: »

Treitz,

Unless I am reading this wrong (which is possible), it seems that this ‘point’ is built upon the loose foundation that compressed files will one day dominate the market. I will say this much; if the day ever comes to where the racks chalk full of CD’s at Best Buy disappear in favor for computers with downloadable mp3 content – I too will share grave concerns over how Hi-Fi will continue to survive on any meaningful level. Then, I will realize Troy’s ‘point’.

For now, the game is the same as it’s always been; sharing the experience. Any audiophile dealing with a new listener should take the time to demonstrate not only what a good stereo system can do, but how better it can sound with a superior medium at the helm. By all means, let the listener bring their Ipod or their CDR full of mp3’s. Have them sit down and hear the difference for themselves. Most of the individuals I know under 30 (myself included) did not walk into a store/in someone’s home with handful of audiophile approved discs. If you let someone come in your home, listen to your setup on their mp3 player and make no attempt to show them a better way – than as far as I’m concerned, it’s not entirely the mp3’s fault that the demo sucked, its yours. Make an effort, that’s all I’m saying.

In the end, some will get it – some won’t. At least you can rest well knowing you gave them the best experience that you could at the time. Meanwhile, there are millions of discs to spin with dozens more being released on a daily basis. Put away the paranoia, enjoy what you have, and please – pass it on.

Sean, no, you aren't reading it wrong.....

From everything I've read....sales of hard copy media are in the tank. The local music stored that I frequent (which is NONE right now)....the selections aren't what they used to be. It's a shrinking market. Hell, even friends that I know that are my age that used to buy CD's are now buying **** on iTunes.

Secondly, I have demoed mp3 on my rig. I sounded like **** and I'm not the only one who notices. Wendi, who could give a ****, would tell you if that's the sort of sound that the rig makes, it's a waste of money. The point is, a decent demo with **** material WILL NOT CONVINCE ANYONE THAT HIGH FIDELITY IS WORTH PURSUING. In our market segment, disposable dollars are not spent without care and thought (for the most part). If there is no perceived value, than I don't see the market sustaining itself over the long haul.

Again, I don't see the industry addressing the issue. Sure, we've got it so you can hook up your computer or iPod to a rig, I guess....but people who do still have a vast library of higher resolution media.

What happens when they don't? Will people still want to spend money on better gear if it doesn't give them better sound? I find that a difficult leap of faith to make. This is where I think the industry needs to get off the dime and start addressing the issue. I have no idea what the answer is....that's why I bring up the discussion.

Lest anyone think that I'm an old fogey that doesn't warm to the new technology, not true. I love my iPod and couldn't live without it and I think that for the sake of music, it's great. For the sake of hifi, I think it's a curse.

BDT

TroyD

...and that's what I'm saying, I think the spin 'em if you got 'em scenario is far more likely than anybody is willing to admit.

We like to think that there will always be readily availble, high(enough) resolution media...but those times, I'm afraid are a-changin'

Again, what I don't see is the audio industry even thinking about it.

BDT

George Grand

You guys worry too much. Get a whole bunch of extra ****, stick it in the closet. No matter what happens down the road, you're set. I'm good till the middle of the 23rd or 24th century.