Ugh! MP3s Sound Like Garbage! [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Ugh! MP3s Sound Like Garbage!



SlumpBuster
11-13-2006, 08:11 AM
So my trusty Diskman finally gave up the ghost. Accordingly, I got my first MP3 player. A Creative Nano 1gb on sale at CC for 60 bucks. I got home and was estatic. Without even realizing it when I bought it, it has an FM radio and direct recording from a mini-plug input. Bonus!

My computer instantly recognized it as did my MusicMatch software. How's that for zero setup time. The computer randomly loaded a bunch of songs on to the player, and I went out to rake the leaves. We have five huge oak trees in our yard so its alot of raking/blowing. Listening with earbuds and -30db ear protectors (gas powered leave blower) it sounded great. I like how the earprotectors seal out the outside noise. I couldn't believe the detail and fullness of the music, albeit with the EQ engaged. And shuffling really is cool. It sounds dumb that something so simple can make you rediscover lost corners of your music collection.

I had never listened to MP3s on anything other than earbuds and computer speakers. So after I was done with my leaves, I went in and plugged it into my receiver's frontpanel inputs. Boy o' boy did it sound like garbage! I couldn't believe this was the same thing that I just thought sounded so good. Good thing I never claimed to have a golden ear. :D

What a modern dichotomy. The MP3 is perfect for what it is, i.e. small, highly portable, highly temporary, music on the go, when fidelity is not primary and "good enough" will do. Yet here it is being touted as a replacement for bulkier high resolution formats. I'm just old enough to still be amazed at how small CDs are. I truly was saddened at the idea that there are thousands of college dorms full of kids that think 10,000 songs on a hard drive are a music collection, especially in light of its dubious fidelity. Yes I know that there are better compressed and lossless formats out there, but I kinda doubt thats what's coming off Kazaa.

Dusty Chalk
11-13-2006, 08:24 AM
I would respectfully disagree. How did you rip it? I really think that's crucial. I use lame --standard-preset.

jrhymeammo
11-13-2006, 08:28 AM
Modern kids dont care, just like kids 40 years ago playing LPs with unknown setups. They just want to DL torrentz and get artists' entire discography with a click on a button.

Mike Anderson
11-13-2006, 08:28 AM
You are confounding a number of different factors in your analysis.

As far as the "dubious fidelity" of music on hard drives, you should realize that encoding music to a digital format and compressing it does NOT necessarily lead to any degeneration of quality. I have almost my entire music collection stored in FLAC, which is lossless compression. You get about 50% compression, and it's exactly identical to the CD.

MP3s can be decent quality if they are encoded properly at a decent bit rate. The vast majority of listeners cannot distinguish between MP3s burned at a rate of 200kbps and above -- especially if you use variable bit rate encoding. I have a fair amount of music encoded this way, and it sounds fine. I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference, even on my fairly high quality stereo rig.

Also, because you are using a Creative Nano to play the MP3s, there are many other factors that may be causing the poor quality. The DAC on your player is of comparatively poor quality, as are the analog connections to it. If you ran the same MP3s into a high quality DAC with good analog components, chances are they would sound much, much better.

These same misunderstandings come up again and again on this board, and elsewhere. It's a shame there's so much disinformation about computer-based music out there....

jrhymeammo
11-13-2006, 08:31 AM
I would respectfully disagree. How did you rip it? I really think that's crucial. I use lame --standard-preset.

I think has alot to do with internal DAC too. I thought IRiver had one with optical output. Not that I would consider using a portable device as my main source, but I wouldnt mind paying extra for that feature.

-JRA

basite
11-13-2006, 08:32 AM
well, how you ripped it IS important, also, how did you hook it up to your receiver?
i agree there is a difference in mp3 quality compared to cd's, and yes it is badder,
so its normal you think it sucks,

for downloading: kazaa is crap, and all the things on it are like what, 128kbps? and yes, without doubt, they suck.

jrhymeammo
11-13-2006, 08:38 AM
I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference, even on my fairly high quality stereo rig.

Do we have a volunteer?

On other thread I suggested:


We should do that via mail. Make 5 tracks at 64, 128, 256, 320, and Lossless on CD-Rs, and submit answers to the sender with actual answers. I'll fund $20 to whoever wants to be in charge. I guess participants gotta pay for the shipping though. $1? You can even do it with different cables too. See if we can identify differences.

basite
11-13-2006, 08:38 AM
probably, since they don't make things like Idocks (for ipods) for creative, you don't have any other option then hooking it up via a analog 3.5mm minijack to stereo rca, and those, as we know, suck,

i hooked up some mp3 players from friends to my amp (well, not now, when they were here, which happens sometimes), and i found they where really boomy and well yeah, too much bass and no treble.
which is logical, since the dac in the mp3 player is cheap, and not really made to be hooked up to a expensive stereo system.

SlumpBuster
11-13-2006, 09:06 AM
You are confounding a number of different factors in your analysis.

As far as the "dubious fidelity" of music on hard drives, you should realize that encoding music to a digital format and compressing it does NOT necessarily lead to any degeneration of quality. I have almost my entire music collection stored in FLAC, which is lossless compression. You get about 50% compression, and it's exactly identical to the CD.



Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming dubious fidelity of hard drives. A CD is analogous to a hard drive. So is an LP for that matter. Records are recorded and mixed from hard drives.

Its could definately be how they are ripped, but it is more likely the cheap Creative Nano and its DAC. They are ripped at 192 in MP3 and actually sound pretty good off of my computer. I did hook up a small vintage system to the computer last night, and it was markedly better than the Creative Nano through my main system.

Like I said, through earbuds doing yard work, it all sounded great. But when people go out and drop $400 on an Ipod, many are thinking that they are getting state of the art sound when there is a lot more to it than just click and drag.

noddin0ff
11-13-2006, 09:23 AM
I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4,2621431,2621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.

jrhymeammo
11-13-2006, 09:36 AM
I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4,2621431,2621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.

Gawd, you were such an AHole on that thread.:p :p :p :p :p

I love it.

noddin0ff
11-13-2006, 11:16 AM
Thanks, it was a particularly proud moment for me too. ;-)

Mike Anderson
11-13-2006, 06:26 PM
On other thread I suggested:

Nothing needs to be mailed though, you can just do it at home. You simply need to take great care that it's truly blind. There are programs that can do this for you (e.g. foobar2000).

I'd love to have someone come here to my home to try it, because then I can make sure it's truly double-blind, as opposed to relying on someone's word for it.

Woochifer
11-13-2006, 06:56 PM
As others have said, you got a lot of variables at work here. I've noticed clearly audible differences between MP3 encoders, so what you use to rip the files in the first place has a direct bearing on the sound quality. Lately, I've been going with the Real Player at 192k variable bitrate, and that creates some very convincing copies of the original CDs.


I truly was saddened at the idea that there are thousands of college dorms full of kids that think 10,000 songs on a hard drive are a music collection, especially in light of its dubious fidelity. Yes I know that there are better compressed and lossless formats out there, but I kinda doubt thats what's coming off Kazaa.

I'm amazed everytime I read comments like this because the music systems I remember in my friends' dorm rooms in the mid-80s mostly used cassette players, boom boxes, and/or receivers hooked up to large JBL clone speakers. Hardly what I would call a high fidelity experience. And people I knew who went to college in the 70s hauled their portable record changers (w/ the integrated speakers) and 8-tracks around. From one generation to the next, the vast majority of college students have never cared much for the sound quality.

In actuality, I think college students today have got it much better than students from previous decades, since MP3s and most computer speakers are far superior to what students typically used 20 or 30 years ago. For all the flak that 128k MP3 gets on this board, I doubt that anyone in their right mind would prefer a prerecorded cassette or a scratchy 45 played through a portable record changer.

SlumpBuster
11-13-2006, 08:22 PM
My college experience must have been different. I went to college in the mid 90s and hi-fi was a big part of it. It was routine for people to return from summer break and Christmas break with a shiny new hi-fi. Sure there was a fair amount of Fisher and Bose, but there was alot of everything else from Boston, Jamo, JBL, Klipsch, B&W, Vegas, and Advent to Nad, Yamaha, Denon, Mitsubishi and even saw some stray Naks and Luxman from time to time. Pretty hi-fi for a bunch of 20 year olds.

What is frustrating is that good hi-fi is so comparatively cheap these days, but separate components with big speakers are not what people are buying anymore. Just look at old Radio Shack ads. 17 watts by Realistic for $400 in the 70s? Look at what the same money can get today in the two channel market.

Resident Loser
11-14-2006, 06:33 AM
...another example of the same ol' same ol'...

Coffee used to come in one-pound canisters...now yer lucky if you get 11ozs...Cell phones sound like cr@p compared to a land line with a quality WE or Stromberg 'phone...I could go on with every facet of "life" that has been affected by the same disease: a gradual lowering of standards and commensurate expectations...simply reduced, it's all downsizing for price...

jimHJJ(...think about it...)

noddin0ff
11-14-2006, 06:42 AM
...simply reduced, it's all downsizing for price...

*chuckle*

aztericx
11-14-2006, 08:24 AM
Does it improve the sound quality to convert mp3s to WMA or something like that?

noddin0ff
11-14-2006, 09:32 AM
Does it improve the sound quality to convert mp3s to WMA or something like that?

No. When ever you convert to or convert between lossy formats like MP3 or WMA you lose information. You can only degrade the signal you can't make it better.

aztericx
11-14-2006, 11:16 AM
No. When ever you convert to or convert between lossy formats like MP3 or WMA you lose information. You can only degrade the signal you can't make it better.
Ok, thanks. How do you do to get a good music file on your computer?

Mike Anderson
11-14-2006, 11:23 AM
^^^ Rip your CDs with a program like Exact Audio Copy (EAC) that does error correction:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Use a lossless compression format, like FLAC:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/

Make sure you figure out how to set it up right, it's not terribly user friendly. You can also use a program like iTunes and rip to Apple lossless if you need something more user friendly, but keep in mind that not all formats are playable on all platforms.

If hard disk space is a concern, or if you use a portable player, you can get fairly decent sound using MP3 format down to a bitrate of about 200kbps, especially if you use variable bit rate recording. Look for the most recent version of LAME:

http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php

Woochifer
11-14-2006, 06:05 PM
My college experience must have been different. I went to college in the mid 90s and hi-fi was a big part of it. It was routine for people to return from summer break and Christmas break with a shiny new hi-fi. Sure there was a fair amount of Fisher and Bose, but there was alot of everything else from Boston, Jamo, JBL, Klipsch, B&W, Vegas, and Advent to Nad, Yamaha, Denon, Mitsubishi and even saw some stray Naks and Luxman from time to time. Pretty hi-fi for a bunch of 20 year olds.

What is frustrating is that good hi-fi is so comparatively cheap these days, but separate components with big speakers are not what people are buying anymore. Just look at old Radio Shack ads. 17 watts by Realistic for $400 in the 70s? Look at what the same money can get today in the two channel market.

Boy, you must have been surrounded by a buncha blue bloods (or at least students who got more generous financial aid packages than my friends did!). :D Most of the students I knew used mini-systems, and that's no different than the dorm rooms I visited back in the 70s, or with my younger cousins during the mid-90s. Just because you might have known some people who had component systems does not mean that was the norm. Sales for home audio components have never topped $2 billion, yet the sales for the iPod alone last year totaled over $3 billion. From my vantage point, this indicates that you got more students than ever who listen to music (doesn't mean that they're purchasing music) nowadays.

You might say that because more students nowadays use portable and computer-based systems, it indicates less of an interest in hi-fi. But, I would simply add that the interest has never been there in the first place for the vast majority of students out there. Today's iPod = yesterday's Discman = yesterday's Walkman = yesterday's tape boombox = yesterday's portable record changer.

Audio is a niche hobby, and always has been, no matter how much audiophile revisionism likes to idealize the past. How else would you explain prerecorded cassettes dominating the market from the early-80s through the mid-90s? Or how during the vinyl heyday, the vast majority of LPs were played through crappy record changers, and not high end turntables (not that the term "high end" even existed back then)?

Woochifer
11-14-2006, 06:12 PM
.Coffee used to come in one-pound canisters...now yer lucky if you get 11ozs.


Yeeech!!! Who needs cans when you now got freshly roasted coffee beans being peddled at every Starbuck's and grocery store in America? But, if the cans make you feel better, you could always buy a 1 lb. bag (which is pretty much the most common denomination) and dump it into an old Folger's can. :D

JoeE SP9
11-15-2006, 06:46 AM
not high end turntables (not that the term "high end" even existed back then)?

Sorry Woochifer, the high end was around in the early 80's. Back then I was using an ARC SP3 preamp and Maggy MG-1's. They were considered high end. As a matter of fact the HQD (stacked Quads, Decca ribbon tweeters with a Hartley sub woofer) system driven by Mark Levinson electronics was the highest of the high end.:ihih:

Resident Loser
11-15-2006, 07:40 AM
Yeeech!!! Who needs cans when you now got freshly roasted coffee beans being peddled at every Starbuck's and grocery store in America? But, if the cans make you feel better, you could always buy a 1 lb. bag (which is pretty much the most common denomination) and dump it into an old Folger's can. :D

...but then I'd need a proper grinder to do it up right...don't wan't some effete cafe mocha mint or hazelnut caramel sludge insinuating itself in my fine-grind, ultra-dark roast...I like coffee...real coffee flavored coffee, the stronger the better...

Besides, at three or four cups a week, I'm quite content with my Medaglia D'oro or Cafe Bustello...When it goes on sale or my wife has a coupon, it's a caffeine dream...I was simply outlining the covert screwing we consumers get on a regular basis...

And given my deep resentment for the corporate swine of the Col. MacWendybelle ilk...the ubiquitous Starbucks? I'd rather drink warm worm urine...

jimHJJ(...and I don't think worms pee...per se...)

Resident Loser
11-15-2006, 07:59 AM
...May I remind those interested, audio was all DIY/high end in it's early days...hobbyists who were interested in better performance than that which could be had from the garden-variety Victrola or console...Even in mono, it was always a niche group that considered itself above the mass produced/marketed "furniture"...

And college? Dorms? I shared a room with my brother and took mass-transit to CUNY...My "stereo" was a mono GE record player that was obtained with Plaid Stamps...

jimHJJ(...it was the music that mattered...)

Woochifer
11-15-2006, 08:33 AM
Sorry Woochifer, the high end was around in the early 80's. Back then I was using an ARC SP3 preamp and Maggy MG-1's. They were considered high end. As a matter of fact the HQD (stacked Quads, Decca ribbon tweeters with a Hartley sub woofer) system driven by Mark Levinson electronics was the highest of the high end.:ihih:

By vinyl heyday, I was not referring to the early-80s. By that time, the prerecorded cassette had already surpassed the LP in unit sales, and the CD introduction was imminent.

My contention is simply that there's a helluva lotta audiophile yearning for the good ole days, and pointing to the dominance of the LP in an earlier time as some kind of proof that consumers back then cared more about sound quality. But, the reality is that most LPs were played through cheap and crappy sounding record players (many of which used those gawdawful stack spindles for continuous play), and that's no different from today where you got many more consumers that use mini-systems or computer-based systems than component-based systems. Given a choice between those typical record changers and a computer-based system playing MP3, I'll take the latter straight up for sound quality, and consider the conveniences (i.e. instant access to music collection, no flipping of records, no cleaning/maintenance, etc.) as a bonus.

Mike Anderson
11-15-2006, 08:39 AM
I'm with Wooch on this all the way.

It's simply silly to claim consumers are getting screwed when you can get a gizmo like the iPod for a few hundred bucks or less. Anybody with half a brain would've given their left nut for something like that back in the '80s.

And in terms of pure sound quality, dollar-for-dollar it's never been cheaper. Stop and think about how much scratch you'd have spent in the '70s trying to get the degree of quality you can get today for a couple thousand bucks. No comparison.

Resident Loser
11-15-2006, 09:03 AM
By vinyl heyday, I was not referring to the early-80s. By that time, the prerecorded cassette had already surpassed the LP in unit sales, and the CD introduction was imminent.

My contention is simply that there's a helluva lotta audiophile yearning for the good ole days, and pointing to the dominance of the LP in an earlier time as some kind of proof that consumers back then cared more about sound quality. But, the reality is that most LPs were played through cheap and crappy sounding record players (many of which used those gawdawful stack spindles for continuous play), and that's no different from today where you got many more consumers that use mini-systems or computer-based systems than component-based systems. Given a choice between those typical record changers and a computer-based system playing MP3, I'll take the latter straight up for sound quality, and consider the conveniences (i.e. instant access to music collection, no flipping of records, no cleaning/maintenance, etc.) as a bonus.

...just another appliance, just pop it in like bread in a toaster...don't get me wrong...I'm quite happy with my Target CDs and my Sears GPX player($7USD after rebate) and my $5USD Koss 'phones from Wal-mart...simply convenient and it's the music that matters...and with all that extra time on your hands, you can sit in Starbucks drinking overpriced coffee...

jimHJJ(...whilst Wi-Fi-ing...)

jrhymeammo
11-15-2006, 09:20 PM
Anybody with half a brain would've given their left nut for something like that back in the '80s.

And in terms of pure sound quality, dollar-for-dollar it's never been cheaper. Stop and think about how much scratch you'd have spent in the '70s trying to get the degree of quality you can get today for a couple thousand bucks. No comparison.

I'm so happy that I was born in 1979.

PeruvianSkies
11-15-2006, 10:35 PM
Ok...may I ask another quick question? I am not sure if this has been addressed directly, indirectly, or not at all, so i'll ask this...

How do I retain maximum quality when I take a Redbook CD place it into my computer and make a copy from it or play it from the computer? I use iTunes currently as my computer player since I have a Mac computer. I typically use the Apple Lossless when I transfer the tracks from the disc onto my computer...is that the best? Also, when I burn it to a CD-R should I change any settings? Is there any alternative software that I should be aware of that could do this process better for Mac??? Any help would be awesome!

basite
11-16-2006, 07:12 AM
maybe, not sure, (almost sure) but if space is no matter, copy the disc to your hard drive by making an image of it (.iso, .mdf/mds,...) in this way, it's like really copying a disc, only you don't copy it to another cd, but to your hard drive.

i must warn you though, if you have never worked with images of any kind, this is a very difficult method, and it is a really big file (700 mb MAX)

Feanor
11-16-2006, 08:10 AM
Ok...may I ask another quick question? I am not sure if this has been addressed directly, indirectly, or not at all, so i'll ask this...

How do I retain maximum quality when I take a Redbook CD place it into my computer and make a copy from it or play it from the computer? I use iTunes currently as my computer player since I have a Mac computer. I typically use the Apple Lossless when I transfer the tracks from the disc onto my computer...is that the best? Also, when I burn it to a CD-R should I change any settings? Is there any alternative software that I should be aware of that could do this process better for Mac??? Any help would be awesome!

My experience is that Apple Lossless is practically indistinguishable from CD, (or WAV). I rip CDs using iTunes on my Windows XP machine to this format with "Error correction" set to 'ON', not that I've necessarily noticed a difference.

Other alternatives to ripping the CD that I've looked at, e.g. Exact Audio Copy, (EAC), are much less convenient to use, especially if iTunes is your library and player as is the case for me.

I occassionally have compter playback glitches. These are what I call "dropouts" that arise -- I suspect -- from the data stream not getting to the sound card on time. They sound very much like vinyl clicks & pops! :biggrin5: So if you're nostalgic for vinyl ...

I doubt that they are the result of problems in the recording process, but I'm not entirely sure. To aleviate the problem, if you're a Windows XP user at least, I suggest minimizing the number of programs running while you're recording or playing; not only programs you initiate yourself but also unnecessary Start Up programs and Registry-initiated programs and services. But don't mess with this stuff unless you know what you're doing or have good advice.

Mike Anderson
11-16-2006, 08:20 AM
My experience is that Apple Lossless is practically indistinguishable from CD, (or WAV). I rip CDs using iTunes on my Windows XP machine to this format with "Error correction" set to 'ON', not that I've necessarily noticed a difference.

If it's really lossless, it should be 100% indistinguishable from the CD, ripping errors aside. With a true lossless format, you can convert back to the original PCM stream bit-for-bit (which is precisely what the player does). In fact that's one way to prove it's really lossless.

Note that Apple's error correction is comparatively weak. You won't run into problems very often, but once in a blue moon you'll get a poor quality or damaged disk, and the resulting song will end up with clicks or skips in it.

noddin0ff
11-16-2006, 08:34 AM
I rip to Apple Lossless with the error correction 'on'. In my opinion, you'd need a golden ear to hear the difference.

There's a free program for the Mac called Max (here's the clicky) (http://sbooth.org/Max/). It probably has the best error free ripping options available for free on a Mac. Plus it converts to just about any format you could want.

I haven't tried it yet. It requires OS 10.4 or higher. (I'm on 10.3.9)

Feanor
11-16-2006, 09:19 AM
If it's really lossless, it should be 100% indistinguishable from the CD, ripping errors aside. With a true lossless format, you can convert back to the original PCM stream bit-for-bit (which is precisely what the player does). In fact that's one way to prove it's really lossless.

Note that Apple's error correction is comparatively weak. You won't run into problems very often, but once in a blue moon you'll get a poor quality or damaged disk, and the resulting song will end up with clicks or skips in it.

I'm really not clear whether the skips I hear are caused durying rip or playback. The determination is difficult because most often playbacks are flawless or virtually so. In any case I suspect problems lies elsewhere than Apple's compression algorythm; all files that regularly cause playback glitches were made from apparently unblemished discs.

And I have created CDs from Apple Lossless files on one or two occassions. As you say, they are practically (or entirely) indistinguishable from the originals.

Mike Anderson
11-16-2006, 01:06 PM
I'm really not clear whether the skips I hear are caused durying rip or playback. The determination is difficult because most often playbacks are flawless or virtually so. In any case I suspect problems lies elsewhere than Apple's compression algorythm; all files that regularly cause playback glitches were made from apparently unblemished discs.

It's the ripping (and the imperfect error correction in the ripping process) that causes clicks or skips.

Lossless compression will NOT change the sound in any fashion. Lossy compression will create certain artifacts, but not clicks or skips, generally speaking (unless it's an amazingly bad algorithm).

And playback shouldn't produce clicks or skips either, unless there's something wrong with your setup.

Sometimes even perfect-looking disks can cause problems, perhaps because of the way they were burned. It's very rare though.

If I have time when I get home tonight, I will try to post a clip online to demonstrate what I'm talking about. It's quite audible.

Woochifer
11-16-2006, 04:43 PM
I'm with Wooch on this all the way.

It's simply silly to claim consumers are getting screwed when you can get a gizmo like the iPod for a few hundred bucks or less. Anybody with half a brain would've given their left nut for something like that back in the '80s.

And in terms of pure sound quality, dollar-for-dollar it's never been cheaper. Stop and think about how much scratch you'd have spent in the '70s trying to get the degree of quality you can get today for a couple thousand bucks. No comparison.

No kidding! Even though Walkmans throughout the 80s kept getting smaller and smaller, consumers were still limited by the number of cassette tapes that they could physically carry with them, and the performance limitations of the cassette format itself.

Maybe I wouldn't have traded my left nut for something like an iPod back then! But, certainly a device that allows me to carry my entire music collection with me with audio quality at least as good as a cassette tape would have been of great interest to me and just about everybody else I knew who owned a Walkman. (Is it any wonder that the MP3 player market is more than triple the size of the audio component market?)

As for other parts of the audio market, all you have to do is inflation adjust the prices for vintage audio components and compare that with what you could buy today. My parents' receiver was a Marantz 2275. A very nice sounding receiver that sold for $600 back in 1976. Those same dollars today would be worth over $2,100 -- just think about how much two-channel amplification you could buy with that kind of a budget?

$600 was about what I paid for my 5.1 receiver five years ago. I would say that my parents' Marantz has a somewhat more refined sound than my Yamaha, but the functionality of the newer receiver is far superior AND it can do multichannel. In the greater scheme of things, I'm perfectly willing to trade off a little bit of refinement on the two-channel side for the array of new capabilities that my 5.1 receiver provides. And the market seems to share in that view. If I chose to pay $2,100 for a receiver combination today, I would think that I could bump up the two-channel performance to even surpass that of my parents' Marantz.

Resident Loser
11-17-2006, 08:57 AM
In the greater scheme of things, I'm perfectly willing to trade off a little bit of refinement on the two-channel side for the array of new capabilities that my 5.1 receiver provides. And the market seems to share in that view...

...Wooch...but the "market" wasn't really given much of a choice was it?

And now you also have the potential for having your entire audio collection disappear in a classic "Oh $h!t!!!" moment...but then again, most of today's music is as disposable as the hardware it's played on...

jimHJJ(...iPod's just another appliance...)

Feanor
11-17-2006, 09:29 AM
It's the ripping (and the imperfect error correction in the ripping process) that causes clicks or skips.
...
And playback shouldn't produce clicks or skips either, unless there's something wrong with your setup.

Sometimes even perfect-looking disks can cause problems, perhaps because of the way they were burned. It's very rare though.

....

I reripped some track where I had experienced clicks or skips. As before I used iTunes and specified Apple Lossless with error correction. On playback I heard no clicks or skips. Presumably something was different either in the ripping or playback. The only difference I can think of is that I was running no other programs on my slowish laptop during either process.

It's worth noting that I tested the CD with Exact Audio Copy; EAC reported no errors on the relevant tracks. So I would surmise that the error correction during the rip was not the culprit since there were no errors to correct. My main suspect remains insufficient buffering of the data stream during rip, playback, or both, that, when combined with multiple tasks running on the computer, is the cause of these artifacts. In particular, I think it's most likely during the ripping where the actual problem is being created. That's because one can't control the buffer size for the rip in iTunes, but one can for for playback for my M-Audio external sound card where I have it set to the maximum value.

ericl
11-17-2006, 09:55 AM
I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4,2621431,2621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.
LOL, Noddinoff, you were in fine form in that thread. Good Show!

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 11:02 AM
Okay, after living with my new MP3 player for a week I have to unfortunately issue what may be termed a retraction, or at least a mea culpa.

First off, MP3's do not sound like garbage, my MP3 players DAC/amplifier(?) sounds like garbage. What do you call that little dingleberry of headphone jack anyway? I guess it's an amp? Actually, it is fine with earbuds, but was lacking when I used my over-the-ear Sennheiser cans or plugged it into my receiver.

Probably half my CD collection is ripped onto my computer at 256 and 192 in MP3, but I never hooked it up to a proper system. I just kinda ripped it figuring I would want it all there someday. Well it sounds pretty good through an 80's vintage Akai reciever, Infinity/Boston Acoustic FrankenSpeaker, and whatever soundcard Dell throws in when you click the button for upgraded sound when you order it.

Which comes to an important learning lesson on my part regarding new formats and being somewhat of a crumudgeon. I thought the trend of adding USB ports to receivers was just trendy marketing. "Why not just use a Y-splitter?" I thought. But now I get it! Not only am I bypassing the MP3 player's DAC and headphone amp, but the USB is supply power to the player. Frankly, it was a real "Duh" moment. All the MP3 player is is a fancy flash drive. Like I said "Duh."


Combine that with the convienence offered by MP3s and I think I just figured out what apparently everyone else already knew: These digital music players ain't too shabby. The conveinence is outrageous. Each morning before work this week, I hit a couple mouseclicks and the player is randomly loaded with a day and a half of music. Pretty sweet. Plus the random/freeform thing is a bonus.

I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.

Slump "I must sound like a real grandpa/gomer" Buster

jrhymeammo
11-17-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm not getting you here Slumpy. How are you bypassing the players DAC? I guess my Ipod really suck. I can't play music by using USB.

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 11:27 AM
I'm not getting you here Slumpy. How are you bypassing the players DAC? I guess my Ipod really suck. I can't play music by using USB.

I'm just bypassing the DAC by using the USB output/input. USB just moves around data bits on a hot swap input. I don't have an Ipod, but I just looked and they all appear to be USB compatable. I assume to need a proprietary Apple USB cord though. Maybe you have an old Ipod? Smarter people than me probably know.

jrhymeammo
11-17-2006, 11:35 AM
See that;s the thing, I see products like I-Dock by Denon. Does that device has its own DAC? Cuz I thought by using USB you are just senfing digital signals. Maybe I guess I'll findout when I get that package from Denon for winning that contest. I'll be waiting even in my death bed.

I have a white Nano 4G

-RJA

jrhymeammo
11-17-2006, 11:42 AM
Oh I forgot, I also have a Ipod Mini 6G. It's PINK. I found it at school one day, and turned it in to Lost and Found Office. But now, it's mine. It's pretty hot,

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 11:56 AM
I got mine to use while doing yard work. This must be what the pink ones are for.

http://tehgay.ytmnd.com/

jrhymeammo
11-17-2006, 12:08 PM
I never got paid for that........ WHERE:S MY MONEY MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Resident Loser
11-17-2006, 12:09 PM
I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.


...but why would I want to? ;-p

jimHJJ(...I mean maybe the Bee Gees...and even that would be the older stuff...)

Woochifer
11-17-2006, 12:36 PM
...Wooch...but the "market" wasn't really given much of a choice was it?

Choice? Yes and no. Some manufacturers and resellers were slower than others in adapting to the entry of multichannel formats into the market. Nearly all of the retailers in my area that doggedly chose to stick with two-channel components are no longer around. The market spoke loud and clear in those cases. In the mass market, some companies lead, others follow. But, the net result of that process and the resultant aggregate "choices" that consumers consciously made seems to indicate that multichannel is the choice made more often than not.


And now you also have the potential for having your entire audio collection disappear in a classic "Oh $h!t!!!" moment...but then again, most of today's music is as disposable as the hardware it's played on...

jimHJJ(...iPod's just another appliance...)

Just as some people don't like to wear seat belts, some daredevils like to go without a net, and others use computers with no backups, you got yet some other people who don't backup their music collections. (Of course, if you ever use iTunes, you'd know that the default mode copies downloaded and ripped music onto your computer hard drive first before it gets sync'd to the iPod. Would be kinda hard to lose an entire music collection unless the iPod and hard drive both fail at the same time, or you consciously choose to delete the music libraries on your hard drive.)

Well, every generation's music is considered disposable until the next generation's "disposable" music comes, and then the previously annointed "disposable" music is reannointed as indispensible.

And today's disposable hardware occupies (in real dollar terms) the same market price points as yesterday's disposable hardware. I mean, how many BSR record changers, or GE portable record players, or Panasonic 8-track players (which in real dollar terms cost about the same as an iPod Shuffle) do you see in use today? The Superscope compact system I had as a teenager cost $300 in 1980, which is more in real dollars than what I paid for my receiver six years ago -- my receiver has lasted longer and sounds a lot better.

Of course, the passage of time ensures that in 100 years that a new-in-box 1st gen iPod will be considered an antique collectible at a Sotheby's auction, and "classic" hip-hop will be dissected at length by music historians around the world.

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 12:59 PM
...but why would I want to? ;-p

jimHJJ(...I mean maybe the Bee Gees...and even that would be the older stuff...)


Whatchyoutalkin'bout, Willis? I saw you at the Averil Levigne concert with your "Sk8terBoi" t-shirt on.

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 01:19 PM
and "classic" hip-hop will be dissected at length by music historians around the world.

"I'm Easy-E, I got b*tches galore.
You may have alot of b*tches, but I gots much more."

I got my thesis, man!

Mike Anderson
11-17-2006, 01:19 PM
And now you also have the potential for having your entire audio collection disappear in a classic "Oh $h!t!!!" moment...

Nonsense.

I have my whole collection backed up on archive-quality DVDs. I store them at my brother's house, so even if my place is destroyed in a fire or earthquake, I'll still have my music.

Can't do that with vinyl, can you?

Resident Loser
11-17-2006, 01:28 PM
...I have my whole collection backed up on archive-quality DVDs...

...so you're the one...

jimHJJ(...what's this I hear about CD rot?...)

Dusty Chalk
11-17-2006, 01:28 PM
I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.Here (http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh166085960134938997) ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)

SlumpBuster
11-17-2006, 02:39 PM
Here (http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh166085960134938997) ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)


Show off. :P I thought it would be a parlor trick until The Gadjits "Beautiful Girl" came up only three songs down from Soundclashes "Workforce"

It's like they're in my head, man!

Woochifer
11-17-2006, 02:51 PM
"I'm Easy-E, I got b*tches galore.
You may have alot of b*tches, but I gots much more."

I got my thesis, man!

:lol: Good one!

Funny thing is that so many boomer parents who scared the living crap out of their parents with that moral outrage known as rock n' roll are the very same consumers now demanding that Wal-Mart stock only the "clean" versions of hip-hop CDs!

And with the current generation that's grown up with gangsta rap, I'm sure their kids will find something every bit as horrifying to them. And all the while in 30+ years, we'll have 60 year-old geezers doing the reunion circuit still chiming on about their posse, ho's, and bling.

jrhymeammo
11-17-2006, 03:58 PM
I dont know it has been done, but I believe they need to come out with a hiphop group with Playaz and *****z who are 75+. Just getting all gansta and playa hating younger generation, and how they still rebel to governements by cashing in on social security.

Now that would sound great no matter how you rip it.

JoeE SP9
11-18-2006, 08:41 AM
Bling bling is simply more money than taste.:ciappa:

jrhymeammo
11-18-2006, 09:22 AM
Here (http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh166085960134938997) ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)


DUSTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That thing is awesome man. I typed in my favorite MC, and this motha knows exactly who I like.

Now, there are no excuses for illegal DLing just to "sample" a song.

-JRA

jrhymeammo
11-18-2006, 09:29 AM
Bling bling is simply more money than taste.:ciappa:

Bling Bling is just a part of their Brand. Kids and Adults who actually live what they see on MTVs are pathetic idiots.

Dusty Chalk
11-19-2006, 10:27 PM
DUSTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That thing is awesome man. I typed in my favorite MC, and this motha knows exactly who I like.

Now, there are no excuses for illegal DLing just to "sample" a song.

-JRAIsn't it? I love Pandora, I've been totally addicted to it for that last couple months. And you can sample artists, not just songs. And, you can find other artists that you should like, based on other artists. Best thing since sliced bread.

bobsticks
11-20-2006, 02:39 AM
Nice work, Dusty. You got me once with Diatonis Ambient Radio and Pandora seems to be top-notch at first glance. Thanks for sharing...

Cheers

JoeE SP9
11-20-2006, 07:50 AM
Someone introduced me to Pandora about six months ago. Since then I have purchased half a dozen CD's from artists that Pandora introduced me to. I use it for background music where it comes in very handy. It's much better than any radio station. Having set up several different stations it's kind of like having my own network of radio stations that play what I want to hear.:cool:

Dusty Chalk
11-20-2006, 11:15 AM
Nice work, Dusty. You got me once with Diatonis Ambient Radio and Pandora seems to be top-notch at first glance. Thanks for sharing...

CheersActually, Diatonis wasn't me, but glad you appreciate Pandora. Now I have to check out Diatonis...