or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

things that are making you happy - Page 2107

post #31591 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post

I love that we have this same classic rock discussion going in two different threads. Hilarious.

its awesome. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #31592 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Well the nostalgia is part of it, but I remember doing some experiments with a friend of mine years ago listening to 78's, 45's, and 33 1/3's and CD's on the same system, same songs and such. Essentially the lows were much deeper and highs much higher on the slower speed vinyl. Cd's sound compressed as hell compared to them. I think the conversion of analog to zeros and ones there is a loss of extreme frequencies. It is very apparent.
It is, scientifically proven, not. Digital is about as perfect as it can get. Vinyl is bound to create "errors". A zero stays a zero and a one stays a one. There's no way of misreading it. Remember, the human ear isn't all that great. Or well, it is, but the frequencies you're talking about just aren't noticeable, not even by babies.
post #31593 of 47095
How would we have noticed them though? Maybe there is no combination of 0 and 1 that can reproduce these frequencies. Maybe it is an emotional thing and not scientific, but the fact remains you can hear something different.
post #31594 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

How would we have noticed them though? Maybe there is no combination of 0 and 1 that can reproduce these frequencies. Maybe it is an emotional thing and not scientific, but the fact remains you can hear something different.

Was not an extensive test done of "audiophiles" and they liked an iPod (or something similar) better than a "reference" turntable system?
post #31595 of 47095
So Neil is trying to get record labels to offer their music in a digital lossless format? That alone makes me like him a little more than I did prior. It really bugs me that my desire to own lossless music has basically excluded me from the digital market, so I sincerely hope he's successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

You would be incorrect. Cinnamon Girl and The Needle and the Damage Done would be enough to warrant his place in this conversation but that is hardly the catalogue.

Sorry, but he's just not good enough to warrant the love he gets from so many people. He has a couple/few decent tracks, but he doesn't warrant inclusion on any "best of" lists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post


Yes. He also talks about how warm and rich vinyl was but then goes on to talk about his "perfect" format. Vinyl wasn't rich because it was lossless, it was the scratch and the mechanical connection that people liked. His nostalgia is totally misplaced.

This is his deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28audio_format%29

Your statement on the "scratch" being the part of the superiority of vinyl isn't correct. Good vinyl doesn't have any scratches, pops, hisses, or any of the other stuff that most people view as part of the "coolness." It's all about the warmth of the sound.
post #31596 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Sorry, but he's just not good enough to warrant the love he gets from so many people. He has a couple/few decent tracks, but he doesn't warrant inclusion on any "best of" lists.

This is far different from your statement I disagreed with, i.e. Neil Young sucks.
post #31597 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

1. you are not supposed to get less cool as you get older.

2. people who pigeonhole LS are morons. its a shame about the crash, they had so much more great music to make. free bird is a great song, but not my favorite from them. i can listen to their albums cover to cover, over and over.

3. im not sure about that last bit, i do like both the stones and the beatles a whole hell of a lot. i do have more beatles albums than stones albums, but id be hard pressed to say i like the beatles better per say.

4. i like a few of NYs songs on his own, but that is about it.

1. You kind of are, actually. Plus, if I were any cooler now than I was when I was young, I'd freeze to death. rimshot.gif

2. Agreed.

3. I think you'll find it's surprisingly accurate. I've noticed a similar phenomenon among R.E.M. and U2 fans.

4. Again, agreed. As I mentioned in my reply to Piob, he's just not that great.
post #31598 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This is far different from your statement I disagreed with, i.e. Neil Young sucks.

Fair point. It might be pushing it to say he "sucks," but I think he's profoundly overrated, perhaps in the top-five most overrated artists of all time.
post #31599 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

1. You kind of are, actually. Plus, if I were any cooler now than I was when I was young, I'd freeze to death. rimshot.gif

3. I think you'll find it's surprisingly accurate. I've noticed a similar phenomenon among R.E.M. and U2 fans.

1. i think our definition of cool changes as we age, so in a way we are both right i think. and AYO!

3. i think it may be very accurate in general, but i can honestly say that i like them both a lot, and who i like better would just be dependent on my mood at any given time. i would say though, i like more U2 music them R.E.M. music, though i am not a HUGE fan of either, just enjoy some of their tracks.
post #31600 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Fair point. It might be pushing it to say he "sucks," but I think he's profoundly overrated, perhaps in the top-five most overrated artists of all time.

I can go with assessments like this. His voice/style is not for everyone but I think "sucks" is just a bit harsh and he has written some decent music. I mean, Cinnamon Girl is not only getting air time 45 years after its release it has had many notable covers from Type O Negative (that rocks) to Radiohead.
post #31601 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

How would we have noticed them though? Maybe there is no combination of 0 and 1 that can reproduce these frequencies. Maybe it is an emotional thing and not scientific, but the fact remains you can hear something different.
Firstly, your whole setup of the experiment was flawed. If you know which source is playing, you're also likely to hear a difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless or between perfectly fine cables for 20$ and cables for 2000$, or a CDP for 80$ and a high end CDP for 1200$. The human perception is easily influenced.

Secondly, vinyl won't be as accurate, or high fidelity, one-to-one or however you want to call it as CD. The mechanical reading process itself will distort the music. The turntable (for example when you change the pick-up head or so) and the vinyl are all factors that vary and are important, so there'll be lots of variance.
You also mustn't forget that nowadays due to the loudness war, post-processing sometimes kills the whole dynamics of the music. Sometimes, the vinyls have still the "original/dynamic" sound, so there's a difference too, but that's because of the major music labels.
post #31602 of 47095
Variable bit rate, folks. variable bit rate. 192 VBR is pretty damn good to my ears.

Some people love FLAC and other lossless codecs, but honestly, unless you have a $20k audiophile grade system and a dedicated room in which to listen to it, you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference between the lossless and a very high bitrate lossy encode. I just dont listen to music that way, so it's not worth the hassle to me.
post #31603 of 47095

Everyone needs to listen to some Beach House and cool out right now.

post #31604 of 47095
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post

Variable bit rate, folks. variable bit rate. 192 VBR is pretty damn good to my ears.

Some people love FLAC and other lossless codecs, but honestly, unless you have a $20k audiophile grade system and a dedicated room in which to listen to it, you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference between the lossless and a very high bitrate lossy encode. I just dont listen to music that way, so it's not worth the hassle to me.
Even then, you won't hear a difference between a well encoded 192kbps (or better) mp3 file and lossless. There have been various double-blind tests where audio engineers, musicians, opera singers and people that believe in all the audiophile voodoo gave up after some time because it was guessing at best from 192kbps on.

Oh yeah, I was in the lossless is superior to mp3 camp too. Now I'd still choose lossless over mp3, simply because hard drives don't cost much anymore and you avoid the possible mp3 that was encoded by some fuck up, but really, chances are that you'll be fine in 99.9% of the cases with 192/256/320 kbps mp3.

Of course, when said files get played via 80$ desktop speakers (yes, speakers actually do matter wink.gif), all discussion is pointless.
post #31605 of 47095
GIrl I've had a crush on since HS started following me on Instagram. marchal.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy