I have a 80 gig hardrive in my car that has mp3s on it ... My stero system is worth about 5k . So i dunno man. I like my mp3s . When i'm on the pc i have my mp3s , when i'm on the road i have my mp3s and when i'm in my car i have my mp3s. My budy has his stuff md'd out and he allways comes to me for songs . So really whats the point ? I just know i went tthrough 2 psx , 1 dvd player , 1 cdr burner , 1 sony expload cd player for the car , one disc man and one ps2. I have never had so many problems with any other company. Its my experiance. Not yours. So please don't tell me that i have no clue what i'm talking about.
$ony Quality
- Thread starter Johnny Awesome
- Start date
PC-Engine said:A pair of really highend speakers costs about $15K for example like these Mission Pilastros:
Just for a pair, then you gotta buy all your other surrounds and component separates
Oh pshaw. At 15k those aren't really high end. Come back to me with something like the Wilson Audio X-1 Grand SLAMM Series II Loudspeakers, at $75,900 USD per pair.
Sure there are more expensive speakers out there, but just because they're expensive doesn't mean they sound good. Those Pilastros sound very good up to 50KHz +/- 3 db. Those Wilsons are overpriced IMO. For $80K I could get way better speakers. The Wilsons only go up to 22.5 KHz...it's not even DVD Audio compliant.
I told you, audiophile are insane
I've seen some amp costing upwards of $250,000 for each, I was like WTH ??
And you're supposedly use about four of these, I was like WTF ??
I would rather spend it on $1million grand piano, that I know is a masterpiece. I just don't trust these electrical instruments.
I've seen some amp costing upwards of $250,000 for each, I was like WTH ??
And you're supposedly use about four of these, I was like WTF ??
I would rather spend it on $1million grand piano, that I know is a masterpiece. I just don't trust these electrical instruments.
Last time my friend nearly talk me into buying sound system, that was going to cost me like $3million (this was like 8 years ago though), I can sort of understand expensive speakers, but amps, CD-players, and the rest shouldn't have been that expensive. I think those were tubes as well.
PC-Engine:
> Reality check for Phil
Right back atcha, dude. Reality check for YOU:
FACT:
MP3 players can be very very small and lightweight.
So can MD players. Bigger, sure, but at the size we're talking about, difference is hardly worth mentioning. Modern MD players fits nicely in the palm of your hand if you're naked and don't have any pockets, some MP3 players could actually fit INSIDE you (I will leave it up to you to decide which cavity would be most suitable storage space), but that sounds uncomfortable.
> Solid State ie no moving parts = more reliable.
Lifetime of MD player still measured in years and years under normal use. Who gives a flying f**k?
> Low power only requires 1 AAA battery for like 10+hrs of use.
Ditto. My MD player runs for over a day on a flat NiMH battery. Runs for WAYYY more on an AA battery in addition. We're talking battery life so long it's downright SILLY actually.
> Very good sound quality depending on bitrate.
Ditto. You won't hear any difference, PERIOD. If you do, it's because you convinced yourself there is one to begin with.
> Format can be recorded to CDRs and played back in many CD and DVD players
Ditto. Ever heard of Net MDs, pal?
Also:
MDs are CHEAP. Regular people that aren't idiotic enough to burn 16 grand on a set of speakers have to think about such things you know. I can buy a pack of five 80min discs for ten bucks and cram in 20 hours of music on those, at a quality level that is more than adequate for portable use. I've listened to 65kbps ATRAC3 tunes through my computer speakers and while they sound a little tinny in places with high dynamic range, it's not anything you hear outside the walls of your own home with earplug phones. 16 320kbps MP3s on a 128MB flash memory... *snickers* I have a MD disc with over 80 tracks on it! Ever checked the PRICE on flash cards recently, man? It doesn't compare to MDs, END OF STORY.
You're just being stup- uh, stubborn, here.
CDRs with MP3s may store more, sure (but not at 320kbps they won't!), and do it dirt cheap too, but portable CD players are WAYYYYYY huge compared to MD players and weigh LOTS more. They don't fit in your average jacket pocket like a MD will. They consume lots more power too due to the larger, heavier disc they spin.
For convenience's sake I can just plug in my Net MD in the USB tray, plop a CD in the drive tray, rip it digitally with Sony's own program and have it on my MD inside of ten minutes. All it takes are like three mouse clicks. Overall, MDs kick your MP3 player's ass so bad it's not even funny.
*G*
> Reality check for Phil
Right back atcha, dude. Reality check for YOU:
FACT:
MP3 players can be very very small and lightweight.
So can MD players. Bigger, sure, but at the size we're talking about, difference is hardly worth mentioning. Modern MD players fits nicely in the palm of your hand if you're naked and don't have any pockets, some MP3 players could actually fit INSIDE you (I will leave it up to you to decide which cavity would be most suitable storage space), but that sounds uncomfortable.
> Solid State ie no moving parts = more reliable.
Lifetime of MD player still measured in years and years under normal use. Who gives a flying f**k?
> Low power only requires 1 AAA battery for like 10+hrs of use.
Ditto. My MD player runs for over a day on a flat NiMH battery. Runs for WAYYY more on an AA battery in addition. We're talking battery life so long it's downright SILLY actually.
> Very good sound quality depending on bitrate.
Ditto. You won't hear any difference, PERIOD. If you do, it's because you convinced yourself there is one to begin with.
> Format can be recorded to CDRs and played back in many CD and DVD players
Ditto. Ever heard of Net MDs, pal?
Also:
MDs are CHEAP. Regular people that aren't idiotic enough to burn 16 grand on a set of speakers have to think about such things you know. I can buy a pack of five 80min discs for ten bucks and cram in 20 hours of music on those, at a quality level that is more than adequate for portable use. I've listened to 65kbps ATRAC3 tunes through my computer speakers and while they sound a little tinny in places with high dynamic range, it's not anything you hear outside the walls of your own home with earplug phones. 16 320kbps MP3s on a 128MB flash memory... *snickers* I have a MD disc with over 80 tracks on it! Ever checked the PRICE on flash cards recently, man? It doesn't compare to MDs, END OF STORY.
You're just being stup- uh, stubborn, here.
CDRs with MP3s may store more, sure (but not at 320kbps they won't!), and do it dirt cheap too, but portable CD players are WAYYYYYY huge compared to MD players and weigh LOTS more. They don't fit in your average jacket pocket like a MD will. They consume lots more power too due to the larger, heavier disc they spin.
For convenience's sake I can just plug in my Net MD in the USB tray, plop a CD in the drive tray, rip it digitally with Sony's own program and have it on my MD inside of ten minutes. All it takes are like three mouse clicks. Overall, MDs kick your MP3 player's ass so bad it's not even funny.
*G*
Vince said:
I have a 50+1 minisystem and a $600 pair of speakers, but it's on the other side of my house from my PC. My PC has decent but not overly good speakers. I rip almost every CD I get to my PC so I can listen while I'm on my PC. I also only have a 20GB hard drive, so I don't have the space to shove uncompressed or barely compressed audio... so I just use 160kbps MP3 most of the time, sometimes 192kbps. I can live with it, but yes, I can tell the difference between 128, 192, and 320...
But anyway, that's why someone might rather rip the CD instead of popping it in a player.
Er... what? I see LOTS of 320kbps MP3's on WinMX. Doesn't KaZaA normally block bitrates over 128? Or am I thinking of another programme?
I also see lots of 192kbps... though 160 is rareish. Most are 128 though... I only download 128 if I can't find any 160-192 ones.
And finally... why has nobody mentioned the gargantuan MP3 players one can buy? You know, the ones with like 20+GB memory? You can fit a bloody lot of 320kbps MP3's on those...
320kbps are pretty rare, depending on the sort of music you're looking for. Even if you're fortunate enough to find 320kbps mp3s, quality varies strongly depending on encoding method or encoder. On top of that, a lot of mp3s suffer from wierd artefacts - although I agree that the encoder is to blame, not the compression method.
BTW; WinMX sucks, so does Kaazaa. Anyone who enjoyes electronic music should try soulseek. Best since audiogalaxy.
PC-Engine said:
In absolute best scenarios, Vinyl is far better than CDs/SACDs/DVD-Audio except the ease of use.
Tube amps sounds more natural to the ears in general, except for the relatively shorter life span of power tubes in mid-to-high-power tube power amps.
There are definite differences if you have to compare, personal preference apart from sonic performance is another matter for sure.
PC-Engine said:
Ok, fair enough.
PC-Engine said:
Why? Because of their price?
Can you hear up to 50Khz? Isn't that Bionic Woman range?PC-Engine said:Those Wilsons are overpriced IMO. For $80K I could get way better speakers. The Wilsons only go up to 22.5 KHz...it's not even DVD Audio compliant.
What speakers would you get for 80K/pair? Have you heard the Wilson's? I thought you were just trying to 'shock' us with the price of high end audio so I threw one back at ya.
See the problem is that psychoacoustics is part science & part voodoo. Just because product A has a flatter response curve does not mean it's necessarily 'better'. Especially when you have to take into account the components it's matched to, the listening environment, the source material, & the listener (shape of his/her ear & sensitivity, etc.).After seeing Coverme's HT setup, I'm trying to get back into the high-end as well.
Maskrider,
How can you claim vinyl is better? Particulary when comparing to SACD, which is engineered to be a high-end storage format, and also DVD-Audio I suppose.
Vinyl wears. Even if you have one of those fancy-pants laser turntables, there's nothing stopping that piece of plastic from slowly vaporizing. In fact, it's worn even from the second it's removed from the printing press, and it will NEVER be better than the glass (I believe) template it was made from, and anything that comes with pre-recorded noise on it from the storage medium itself (recording pin voice coil and accompanying amp) simply has to be classified as Fred Flintstone era technology that belongs on the scrap-heap.
It also only features stereo channels, maybe some records are made with dolby surround encoding, but that's only matrixing of channels, DVD-Audio features true 5.1 surround, not sure about SACD.
So in WHAT WAY is vinyl "better", really?
Audiophile delusions about warmer more natural sound an shit doesn't qualify as arguments, btw.
*G*
How can you claim vinyl is better? Particulary when comparing to SACD, which is engineered to be a high-end storage format, and also DVD-Audio I suppose.
Vinyl wears. Even if you have one of those fancy-pants laser turntables, there's nothing stopping that piece of plastic from slowly vaporizing. In fact, it's worn even from the second it's removed from the printing press, and it will NEVER be better than the glass (I believe) template it was made from, and anything that comes with pre-recorded noise on it from the storage medium itself (recording pin voice coil and accompanying amp) simply has to be classified as Fred Flintstone era technology that belongs on the scrap-heap.
It also only features stereo channels, maybe some records are made with dolby surround encoding, but that's only matrixing of channels, DVD-Audio features true 5.1 surround, not sure about SACD.
So in WHAT WAY is vinyl "better", really?
Audiophile delusions about warmer more natural sound an shit doesn't qualify as arguments, btw.
*G*
Grall, Vinyl has a far better dynamic range and is analogue, not digital.
By definition digital can only approximate a true analogue signal. Sure you can throw a fuckload of bits per second at it, but you can only get an infinitely close approximation.
Yes vinyl does wear, but that's where the main advantage of CD's comes in: audio fidelity. CD's will last a very, very long time - a year-old CD will sound far better than a year-old vinyl LP. But hot off the press, the LP will sound hands down better.
By definition digital can only approximate a true analogue signal. Sure you can throw a fuckload of bits per second at it, but you can only get an infinitely close approximation.
Yes vinyl does wear, but that's where the main advantage of CD's comes in: audio fidelity. CD's will last a very, very long time - a year-old CD will sound far better than a year-old vinyl LP. But hot off the press, the LP will sound hands down better.
Tagrineth said:
and for that fact it is not considered *better*... im sorry but i wouldnt want to buy stuff that sound different after a while. with as much care as u can put into it..
Grall said:
Multi-channel is not the format for Audiophile, stereo is still THE format. Multi-channel is gimmicks and for home theatre people.
And natural sound is not a delusion, it is simply a fact and very well known. For sure I do not mean the whole vinyl library is all that great, there will be bad productions in all kind of formats.
Digital sound reproduction also has its share of problems.
If you can't hear the difference, congratulations, you don't have to worry about getting better sound.
Handling vinyl is not easy, but it is more enjoyable listening to the sound of vinyl, especially when you adquately calibrate the turntable and treat them well enough, they will last a bit longer. But for sure not as long as digital media. But that is not a problem as you have already enjoyed great moments with what you've bought with your money. That's what the most important thing I suppose.
And as Tagrineth said, dynamics (not theoretical, the practical) are simply better with vinyl.
Tagrineth said:
Not all CD are manufactured equal, but most last. I have visible holes with a couple of my CDs within a year.
Some LPs, even after a couple of years (for sure not continuous playing, I mean normal playback and don't jump to this track and that track too often), will still sound better (not about noise, but the presense and dynamics) than CD.
SACD is closer to LP, but still not yet there, may be the SACD playback devices are not mature enough, hi-resolution digital audio is still young. CDs has been continuously improving since its introduction.
Heh heh, it is getting farther and farther from being Console related.
Tagrineth said:
Doesn't the dynamic range depend on the mastering process (how fine the ridges on the glass pressing platters can get), and of course the actual playback mechanism? Regarding the latter, in other words, isn't a stylus going to be missing some data and possibly introducing artifacts due to its very nature of friction & erosion?
Tagrineth said:
Agreed but humans obviously have a very limited psychoacoustical range anyhow that I doubt it matters that much anymore (digital fidelity having improved since its inception).
What are you ranting about? Smaller and lighter is better period no need to deny that FACT. I wear mine like a pager. You wear yours like a heavy wallet
Umm..laser assembly can get out of alignment and dirty too. With my MP3 player I don't have to worry about not dropping it. If it happens so what?
LOL um yeah right. One AA alkaline isn't going to last for 24+ hrs under continuous use. Keep dreaming man. Just remember that shocks lower your battery life. My MP3 player doesn't need antishock protection
I never said there was a difference. That was the whole point
Never heard of it just like 99% of consumers on the planet. If it's great the majority of people would know about it.
Um I don't buy extra flash memory. They're called FLASH for a reason
BTW those 80 tracks are they MP3s? or low quality ATRACs? IIRC a MD can only hold 75 minutes worth of 320kbps MP3 quality ATRAC musc.
I don't listen to MP3s from a portable CD player, that's what the watch sized solid state device is for. A CDR holds 700MB of data. That's about 65 songs at 320kbps
For my needs and the majority of other people on this planet, MP3s make more sense.
Edit: Oh did I mention that some MP3 players can be used as a USB thumb drive? Or that the flash cards has many uses like my digital camera?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked