Is Anyone Still Collecting The Hard Stuff?

[Arvestaked]

Is anyone still concerned with buying legitimate music CD's? All I hear about from people is mp3's and file swapping and burned CD's. If I know that the music of a band is worth being in my collection, I'll go and buy the CD. Otherwise, it's just not in my collection. I need to have the actual CD, the artwork, the liner notes... if I happen to have burned music or mp3's I don't view it as owning the music and I'll throw it away after a while or go and buy the friggin' CD. I'm a collector. I can't help it. Having a bookcase of CDs to obsess over is fun. And I also feel guilty if I'm not paying the artists for their work, however wealthy some may be. And I like going into a record store knowing I'm going to spend a certain amount of money and running through the isles. Good stuff. And not much compares to the feeling of walking out of the store with that bag.

[Sip]

I bought the SOAD CD because everything on it was good. I haven't seen the CD since I bought it ... it's probably somewhere in my stacks of old cds

 

I couldn't care less about the actual CDs because they are practically useless. When you can have ALL your music on a 20Gig drive, why bother with those archaic pieces of plastic?

 

The only time I burn CDs now is to put mp3 files on them for the car. 700 MB worth of mp3s lasts a good month or so.

[Azat]

I buy all my CDs. I know being in the high tech industry I probably should also own an MP3 player but I dont. my old car did have one but not my new car.

 

so I have no MP3 player and only have about 50 MP3 files now.

[vava]

When I like music, I usually end up buying the music. I can't be bothered to convert my CDs to MP3s - and most downloaded MP3s have screwed ID3 tags and are even erroneously named - and I refuse to go through and edit all those incorrect ID3 tags.... it causes me grief. So i'm still a CD guy I guess.

 

Oh, and I do have an MP3 player, but I haven't used it in months - i may think about getting a nano.... but that's still to be seen.

[Anoushik]

Is anyone still concerned with buying legitimate music CD's? All I hear about from people is mp3's and file swapping and burned CD's. If I know that the music of a band is worth being in my collection, I'll go and buy the CD. Otherwise, it's just not in my collection. I need to have the actual CD, the artwork, the liner notes... if I happen to have burned music or mp3's I don't view it as owning the music and I'll throw it away after a while or go and buy the friggin' CD. I'm a collector. I can't help it. Having a bookcase of CDs to obsess over is fun. And I also feel guilty if I'm not paying the artists for their work, however wealthy some may be. And I like going into a record store knowing I'm going to spend a certain amount of money and running through the isles. Good stuff. And not much compares to the feeling of walking out of the store with that bag.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That's great that you feel that way. It tells a lot about you.

 

My brother has an mp3 player in his car and he has a huge mp3 collection. I actually considered buying an Ipod over the summer but a friend who is also a musician talked me out of it. His reasoning was that converting music to mp3 (am I correct, is that how it's done?) diminishes the quality of the music. He knew that I'd be listening to a lot of art music, so he thought that the quality of the performances would not come out OK. But now I think an Ipod would still be Ok, even if the performance is not 100%. A lot of my musician classmates carry Ipods. For my music history classes I need to listen to, familiarize myself, and memorize a lot of music (I mean a lot). So maybe an Ipod is allright after all? Otherwise I'd have to carry around a lot of CD's for my CD player.

[Sip]

Anoushik, mp3 is a compression standard. More importantly, it is a "lossy" compression. With lossy compression, you will lose some of the original information contained in the data (e.g. music) you are trying to compress.

 

However, the "quality" and "bit rate" of an mp3 compressed file will play a big role in how much of this data you lose. With the proper settings, the "loss" will be negligible and in many cases would be impossible to detect by a human ear.

 

As a rule of thumb, a 128 Kbps MP3 file will sound just about as good as a CD audio. Once you go up to 160 Kbps, 192 Kbps, and even 256 Kbps, thing get much better and better so you end up with files that will sound even better than a CD (quality wise).

 

So your friend is kind of right but not right at the same time. If you are going to convert your CDs to mp3, try 128 Kbps (there will be an option in the program you use). If you want really good quality, try 192. Any more that that, and you are wasting disk space in my opinion if you are using CDs as your source (higher settings will result in larger and larger files).

 

In addition to this bit rate setting, there is also a "quality" setting with "Fast/Low" all the way to "Slow/High" ... at Slow/High, it'll take longer to produce the mp3 compressed file but it will sound much better than the fast ones.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Sip

[Anoushik]

Thanks Sip.

I actually read an article a while back that a classical music connoisseur had written, concerning listening to classical music through mp3s. Just like you he wrote that the quality lost is so small and undetectable that people are just being snobbish by saying that they don't use Ipods to listen to classical music (which is all about high quality performance).

[Sip]

Actually mp3 would work well for classical music since there are so many "empty" spaces in the music (quiet periods or relative quiet) as opposed to the constant bang bang bang bang ra ra ra ra of rock or pop music.

 

For that, you may want to look into "variable bit rate" mp3s. Basically, with variable bit rate, the mp3 will automatically switch between low quality to high quality when needed. When for example there's a lot of stuff going on in a piece, the mp3 might switch to 192 or 256 Kbps while during the more quiet times it may switch to 128 or 96. So this way, you'll have very high quality reproductions while keeping the file sizes relatively small. But with CDs, it doesn't matter what you are recording ... it'll always take the same amount of space on the disk.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Sip

[Anoushik]

Thanks for the info.

I can't afford an Ipod anymore. I spent the money that I (kind of) save to buy it. But I do want to buy one in the near future. To be able to listen to that much music in a very small device without a hassle is very attractive to me.

[Sip]

Ipods are extremely overpriced. Don't give into the fad There are MANY different mp3 players out there with varying sizes, features, and prices. For example, believe it or not, one of the cooleest ones in my opinion out there right now is sold at .... get this ... WALMART!

 

The link is here and it's a 1 GB cube about the size of a quarter! for only $130

 

... another one would be something like 40 GB Creative Nomab ... it's a hellovalot cheaper than Ipod and it's certainly not the only one.

 

I personally have 2 different ones .... a really small Samsung Yepp for working out and a bigger hard drive based one made by Archos for the car and trips (it's about 5 years old now and not sold anymore but it has been fantastic).

Edited September 27, 2005 by Sip

[Accelerated]

Im getting THIS next month (hopefully), to replace my ageing phone. Not only is it sexy as, its also got an MP3 player (512Mb card, upgrade to 2G) and a 2Mp camera all in a small 99g(!) package. Sound quality is said to be almost on par with iPod and better than many dedicated MP3 players, and the camera is the best camera available on a phone. Ive done lots of surfing and there is nothing comparable on the market ATM or in the near future, so you should seriously consider it if u also need a phone upgrade.

[Proud EXPAT]

As a rule of thumb, a 128 Kbps MP3 file will sound just about as good as a CD audio. Once you go up to 160 Kbps, 192 Kbps, and even 256 Kbps, thing get much better and better so you end up with files that will sound even better than a CD (quality wise).

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sip the weight of that cheese is getting to your logic.

 

How is it possible that you compress from an original cd and think you can get better results than the actual quality of the cd? There's no logic in what youre saying.

 

FYO

 

-music on original cds are at 1411kbps

 

-mp3s at 128kbps SUCK and do not sound any close to cd audio quality

 

-the lowest I would compress a song to mp3 format is 192kbps nothing less

 

-mp3s SUCK, if you can find a player that plays back ogg files those are top notch, a 128kbps ogg file will sound much better than a 192kbps mp3 which also means it takes up less space, which also means you can fit more on your digital music player

[Sip]

How is it possible that you compress from an original cd and think you can get better results than the actual quality of the cd?

 

Where did I say that? I said "Once you go up to 160 Kbps, 192 Kbps, and even 256 Kbps, thing get much better and better so you end up with files that will sound even better than a CD (quality wise)." Sorry if it was confusing but yah you generally can't compress something and get better quality than the source. Not unless you use some sort of filtering or some additional processing on top of the basic compression.

 

There are a lot of things that will outperform mp3s. MP3s are by no means the solution to end it all. But much like VHS and Casette tapes stuck around for a loooooooong time (heck VHS is still around!), mp3s and DVDs will also be around for a while to come even though right now we have mpeg4 doing a much better job than mpeg2 (DVD). People and companies just have way too much $$$ invested in those things to let them go.

 

 

But at the same time, I wouldn't say 128Kbps mp3s "suck". They may leave a lot to be desired. As far as switching to ogg, I might do it if I had an ogg player in the car and a couple of portable ogg players to take with me to the gym or to listen on the plane

Edited September 28, 2005 by Sip

[MosJan]

Ipod mini

man i have one

it was my Brothers gift to me

300 songs that's all i need - now i have one more think to carry each time i go fishing - and on more think to charge over night each time i intend to use .

other then fishing i have no use for it.

my work is only 3.4mils a way from my home - by the time i find the plug - find the song ~ it's time to turn it offfffffffff

and the sound is not better - i don;t know it's the way i have it hooked up or what but i love the way cd sounds. - if it's not all scratched up or bated from the heat

 

 

i like the car Pm3 & cd players - you can get one under $100

1 cd can take more then i can listen to

[Sip]

By the way, it's unfair to compare the bit rate of CD audio to mp3 audio as one is raw data and the other is compressed. I can guarantee you that 10 minutes of silence will sound just as good on a CD as it will on a 128Kbps mp3 audio. Heck I can write a 0bps custom audio codec to encode that stream with 0 loss

[Sip]

... 300  songs  ...

 

Let me guess, 297 are by Harut.

[MosJan]

Let me guess, 297 are by Harut. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

nop

 

298 songs on duduk

1 Forsh - singing Yerevan Song

1 Marel en Momer@ By Ara

[Arvestaked]

I'm in the process of burning all of my CDs so I can put the burned copies in some portable cases and always have them with me in the car. I don't have many -- about 350 -- but it's taking a devil's age. It'll be worth it though.

[Proud EXPAT]

Where did I say that? I said "Once you go up to 160 Kbps, 192 Kbps, and even 256 Kbps, thing get much better and better so you end up with files that will sound even better than a CD (quality wise)." Sorry if it was confusing but yah you generally can't compress something and get better quality than the source. Not unless you use some sort of filtering or some additional processing on top of the basic compression.

 

There are a lot of things that will outperform mp3s. MP3s are by no means the solution to end it all. But much like VHS and Casette tapes stuck around for a loooooooong time (heck VHS is still around!), mp3s and DVDs will also be around for a while to come even though right now we have mpeg4 doing a much better job than mpeg2 (DVD). People and companies just have way too much $$$ invested in those things to let them go.

But at the same time, I wouldn't say 128Kbps mp3s "suck". They may leave a lot to be desired. As far as switching to ogg, I might do it if I had an ogg player in the car and a couple of portable ogg players to take with me to the gym or to listen on the plane

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Your beating around the bush bud. Filtering miltering processing mrocessing, we're not talking about that, your logic of compressing to mp3 yet being able to come up with better quality than an ORIGINAL does not make sense.

 

And yes mp3s at 128 suck if you are particular with what you listen to. Many decent digital music players are capable of reading ogg files. Too bad mp3 is outweighing the other great formats out there. A 128kbps ogg will KILL an mp3 at the same rate. It's so annoying when companies like Sony make their own formats for their usual snobby reasons.

[Sip]

... your logic of compressing to mp3 yet being able to come up with better quality than an ORIGINAL does not make sense.

 

ONCE AGAIN ... WHERE did I say that regarding MP3s? Read what I have said carefully (both times above). I said mp3 files can have higher quality than CD given a high enough bit rate. Do you understand my point now? I did not say a 256Kbps mp3 compression of an audio cd original will make it sound better

[Sip]

By the way, compressing to mp3 might act as sort of a low pass filter ... since you lose a lot of the high frequency stuff, it is entirely possible in my opinion to encode an audio source to mp3 and end up with something "higher quality" than the source.

 

But before we go down this path of arguing over quality, we first have to agree on what "quality" means... is it the information content, the subjective "feel" of the audio, the closeness of the signal to the original source, etc etc etc.

[Proud EXPAT]

ONCE AGAIN ... WHERE did I say that regarding MP3s?  Read what I have said carefully (both times above). I said mp3 files can have higher quality than CD given a high enough bit rate. Do you understand my point now? I did not say a 256Kbps mp3 compression of an audio cd original will make it sound better

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Dude you said "As a rule of thumb, a 128 Kbps MP3 file will sound just about as good as a CD audio. Once you go up to 160 Kbps, 192 Kbps, and even 256 Kbps, thing get much better and better so you end up with files that will sound even better than a CD (quality wise)."

 

YOU WILL NEVER EVER END UP WITH A FILE THAT WILL SOUND BETTER THAN THE CD WHEN THE CD IS THE MAIN SOURCE. Enhancing it through other processing is another issue, we are not discussing that here. And NO WAY a 128kbps MP3 "will sound just as good as a CD audio".

 

I'm not dumb dude I'm commenting on what you exactly wrote.

 

And you mentioned "mp3 files can have higher quality than CD given a high enough bit rate.", no they can't.

Nevermind theres no use in trying to make you accept the mistakes you wrote.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Proud EXPAT

[Proud EXPAT]

By the way, compressing to mp3 might act as sort of a low pass filter ... since you lose a lot of the high frequency stuff, it is entirely possible in my opinion to encode an audio source to mp3 and end up with something "higher quality" than the source.

 

But before we go down this path of arguing over quality, we first have to agree on what "quality" means... is it the information content, the subjective "feel" of the audio, the closeness of the signal to the original source, etc etc etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes we're speaking about actual closeness to the original sources signal. I said over and over again we are not talking about processing, and altering the sound of the source to suit an individuals preference in what a recording should sound like.

 

If you accept the recording the way it is, with compression you will never come up with a so-called "higher quality" you constantly keep on mentioning.

[Sip]

Yes we're speaking about actual closeness to the original sources signal. ... If you accept the recording the way it is, with compression you will never come up with a so-called "higher quality" you constantly keep on mentioning.

 

That's why I asked for your exact definition of "quality" as I had a feeling that was what was making you uncomfortable. Once we have that in place, now we can come to an agreement. So yah, given that definition, and given that the CD audio is the source (I think you have been making that assumption), I agree with you.

[Proud EXPAT]

That's why I asked for your exact definition of "quality" as I had a feeling that was what was making you uncomfortable. Once we have that in place, now we can come to an agreement. So yah, given that definition, and given that the CD audio is the source (I think you have been making that assumption), I agree with you.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Dude youre still twisting things around.

 

Nevermind there is NO LOGIC in anything youve said. I'm wasting time trying to prove an actual fact.

 

I suppose my diploma at a credible audio engineering institute from the US is useless since you seem more educated in this sphere. I will be sure to contact you anytime I have concerns regarding audio technology.

 

No more comments coming from me in regards to this subject.