54 posts / 0 new
Last post
AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

drummerman wrote:

AEJim wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

Maybe not for the casual buyer but the MACHINE HEAD sacd is really rather good indeed! I only play CD version now, which is also very nice.

Some of the harder rock is surprisingly well produced, Pantera and Rage Against the Machine have some great sounding CD's too!

 

AEJim, I was following some of your contributions over at AVI forum. You should make the time to see Ashley and Martin. Both very nice folks even though some of their ranting about the hifi industry can be tiresome. I still think the ADM's would be better with a rear (not possible I know) or downward facing reflex port if one must be used and their use of Scanspeak units for the latest ADM's is admirable considering the relative low cost of their baby actives. In fact, I had a peak over at the Scanspeak site and their Dutch distributor and probably price up a self build soon (free drawings for cabinet build are available on their site).

regards

 

Yeah, I will get to see Ash again soon - I did visit many years back, probably 2005/6 (he'd given me a Lab Series amp and CD player we'd been using in the office since I kept recommending it to people!). Funnily enough he demo'd me an early iPod with MP3 and asked me to tell the difference between that and his CD player on the same track through a Pre-Power Lab Series amp and his big Trio speakers - I said there may be something in it but couldn't honestly tell a quality difference. He said "exactly, this is where Hi-Fi is going and all this old stuff will be obsolete soon enough". He comes across as opinionated and it winds people up but he backs up what he says, he had no problem with the iPod being as good as his £1500 CD player and that's why I like him, he's an honest guy. He may have views that differ to others but he stands by what he says and what he believes to be true.

 

I obviously offended one of the previous posters with my "Snobbery" here - which came from me replying to a point made that most here would want something better than iTunes quality. I tended to think I was being "anti-snob" with my reply about people worrying too much about bitrates and tiny points in general,  but maybe that's not how it came across.

It's one of the reasons, aside from being told I'm not particularly welcome here (hence going on the AVI forum where things are a little more easy going) that I don't post that often now. I did the 2012 Bristol show with the full kit in our AV room costing under £2k including racks, cables, everything - at least half a dozen people told me that they thought it sounded great only to then turn their nose up when I told them the cost - that's snobbery. I tend to advise people to spend less but spend more wisely where I can. I got into this hobby the same as everyone else and try to advise based on what I know and what I believe to be right.

 

Sorry for going off topic there! Biggrin

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3568
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

Some interesting views about mp3. From what I have heard by listening to mp3 samples, well recorded recent recordings sounded fine but some samples sounded dreadful. I went on the Linn site and they have several cds on there, also went on Amazon mp3 samples. 

 

I would like to know when playing samples on sites like Allmusic are these mp3?

BigH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 29/12/2012 - 12:31
Posts: 3568
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim Neil Young does not agree with you. If you want you can google mp3 and Neil Young and find an article about it.

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

AEJim wrote:
I obviously offended one of the previous posters with my "Snobbery" here - which came from me replying to a point made that most here would want something better than iTunes quality. I tended to think I was being "anti-snob" with my reply about people worrying too much about bitrates and tiny points in general,  but maybe that's not how it came across.

 

No I didn't mean to come across as snobbish either; being snobbish is so far removed from who I am that it isn't in my dictionary. And I certainly wasn't offended :). What I meant in the post you responded to, is that I'd like to be able to buy music from iTunes in its original native format and quality, not something which has been reprocessed by a lossy format change.  No matter which way you look at it, it can't be as good quality, though whether that difference is obviously audible is a moot point. There's no need these days for iTunes to sell music in anything but ALAC format, which also supports 24/96 and 24/192, should they eventually decide to sell HD.  I agree absolutely 100% that once you pass around 192kHz MP3/AAC the actual quality of the master becomes a bigger influence on the SQ than the format, but it's more a matter of principle and the knowledge that you're buying something that technically is inferior to a CD of the same master.

To use a photography analogy 256AAC is like a very good JPG, but really I want to buy the original TIFF, even if my old eyes can't tell the difference on an average-sized print.

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 29 min ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6079
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

BigH wrote:
AEJim Neil Young does not agree with you.

So...?

AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

BigH wrote:

AE Jim Neil Young does not agree with you. If you want you can google mp3 and Neil Young and find an article about it.

Yeah, there have been plenty of recent threads on here which go into the MP3 vs --- debate. I think MP3 has long been tainted by old and mushy 128kBps files. Many have strong views either way but I expect the vast majority would struggle to differentiate between a high bitrate MP3 and CD of the same recording in a blind test. Sadly if you mention blind tests people get all defensive as if you're trying to trick them somehow. Not that I'm laying down a challenge, more the point that we are talking very tiny differences here - less than you'd get from playing a well used LP over a new one of the same recording I'm sure.

AEJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 17/11/2008 - 10:25
Posts: 907
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

MajorFubar wrote:

AEJim wrote:
I obviously offended one of the previous posters with my "Snobbery" here - which came from me replying to a point made that most here would want something better than iTunes quality. I tended to think I was being "anti-snob" with my reply about people worrying too much about bitrates and tiny points in general,  but maybe that's not how it came across.

 

No I didn't mean to come across as snobbish either; being snobbish is so far removed from who I am that it isn't in my dictionary. And I certainly wasn't offended :). What I meant in the post you responded to, is that I'd like to be able to buy music from iTunes in its original native format and quality, not something which has been reprocessed by a lossy format change.  No matter which way you look at it, it can't be as good quality, though whether that difference is obviously audible is a moot point. There's no need these days for iTunes to sell music in anything but ALAC format, which also supports 24/96 and 24/192, should they eventually decide to sell HD.  I agree absolutely 100% that once you pass around 192kHz MP3/AAC the actual quality of the master becomes a bigger influence on the SQ than the format, but it's more a matter of principle and the knowledge that you're buying something that technically is inferior to a CD of the same master.

To use a photography analogy 256AAC is like a very good JPG, but really I want to buy the original TIFF, even if my old eyes tell the difference on an average-sized print.

I totally agree on that principal, in reality there is probably no issue with good quality MP3 or JPEG and it becomes such an excersise to tell quality differences at some levels that it doesn't matter - the fact that a completely uncompressed file could be offered but isn't is indeed frustrating.

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 917
RE: Rock doesn't sound right

"It's one of the reasons, aside from being told I'm not particularly welcome here (hence going on the AVI forum where things are a little more easy going) that I don't post that often now. "

 

AEjim, pls don't be so sensitive, Honestly this was not a personal attack, the point I was trying to get across was only that people want the best from their kit and it is all part of the listening experience. The music is still being listened to it needs no conclusion....... sorry if it sounded/read as if I was attacking you.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments