MP3 vs CD, LP...lo-fi vs Hi-Fi...

[bigG]

This originally began as a discussion in The Now Playing thread. SVL suggested I make a new thread of it, so here it is:


I should start a new Thread about this, but I'd certainly be in a very small minority here. :)

Here goes: this is the first time in the history of recorded music that the pursuit of ever higher fidelity has not been the goal! (Overlooking the dreaded 8-track, audio cassettes and quadrophonic debacles, all of which died off.) SACD, and to a lesser extent, DVD-A, were a huge step in the right direction, but were buried, with honors, by the seeming preference of the music-buying public for convenience over high(er) fidelity!

That convenience trumps quality when it comes to musical fidelity seems heresy to me! For background music lovers, I can understand. But for those many audiophiles among us music lovers, the squashed, lo-fi sound of downloads and MP3s and their ilk is pure blasphemy!

I have been an audiophile since the late 60s, and I have a HUGE stereo set-up, purchased at a huge price (and many before my current one) that gives me hours of aural pleasure almost daily, whether CD, LP, or SACD, as has been the case for many, many years. Nothing beats parking yourself in the "sweet spot" and letting the great music on a great sound system take you away!

Sad to say that I have all but given up on CD/LP shopping in brick and mortar stores, as the selection gets thinner and thinner thanks to downloads and MP3s and ipods and yourpods and blackberries and raspberries and cell phones, and gawd knows what else! I don't own any of 'em, and doubt I ever will.

Glad to say that I have such a huge collection of LPs, CDs and SACDs that I'm pretty much covered in having most all the music I love already in hand - from classical to blues to jazz to rock, and anything and everything inbetween. My tastes are eclectic and widespread, thank goodness!

I also have a HUGE home theatre set-up that cost huge $, and I see these adds for the Bose Wavelength or Waveform or whatever it's called, and I just laugh and cry at the same time. These people have never heard a good, much less GREAT home theatre set-up! Or they certainly wouldn't be so blown away by that simple, silly little box! (That's WAY over-priced, btw!)

It seems to me that going from hi-fidelity, in all its glory, to lo-fi downloads and MP3s is analogous to going from a Les Paul or a Strat thru a Marshall or a Vox to a Sears Silvertone guitar thru a Sears Silvertone combo amp w paper-thin speakers...Surely you can understand that analogy!

End of rant. Not telling anyone what they "should" like, just expressing MY opinion as to the state of recorded music as it exists today for the seemingly ever-growing bulk of music listeners. *whew* and :thwap:

Replies, responses, feelings and general feedback of all types welcome! Have at it :D

[sunvalleylaw]

I am quite interested in this (and am procrastinating from work right now) as I considered myself a semi audiophile starting as a teen in the late 70's to early 80's. When I first started really listening to music, it was on LP's. I helped my Dad shop for a decent quality stereo with a decent but not over the top turntable, and a good cassette deck. I became good at setting recording levels and recording my LP's to Maxell tapes (I was a Maxell, not a TDK guy). Later I bought my own good stereo with some good speakers I picked out in a speaker room for the sound I was looking for.

When we had kids, they destroyed the foam on my speakers and they are now in the closet. We have some ok bookshelf speaks for now. But now the kids are older and we have a remodel going, and I am going to re-foam, if not completely rebuild my old dahlquists.

That said, maybe some talk about analog v. digital (CD) vs. what you get when you download would help. I simply do not understand what the full difference is. When I first started, there was regular vinyl, and the premium, thicker vinyl that some higher end jazz recordings and etc. came on. CDs are a different animal. Basically digital info, right? It seems to me digital info can be stored on a CD, or transmitted over the internet if your pipeline is big enough, but I am aware that some MP3s may be recorded or mixed differently to account for MP3 headphone/speaker characteristics. Can you help me understand the difference?

Back when I got my own first stereo (1984 or 85), CD's were new, and some were digitally mastered, and some were remastered analog recordings. Some were labeled premium but I am not sure what was better.

Once I get the recording I want, I might want to store it on a hard drive, rather than play it from the source CD. I think you can do that without losing too much quality. I always rip CD's at the highest available bit rate, etc.

[bigG]

SVL, thanks for the interest! :beer:

Man, you throw out ALOT of interesting subject matter here!

I'll be brief, as I'm abt to do some playin n listenin (n eatin)!

It sounds like you do have some audiophile in ya! Some good experience, anyway, from what you mention. If you went to a sound room, it must've been at least somewhat of a high-end audio component salon...? Man, I haven't heard Dahlquists mentioned in years! Sad to hear abt the surrounds, man! When you can, definitely get 'em reconed!

And you were around for vinyl, and the intro of CD, so you have a good base to work from. Initially, CDs were horrid sounding, and that put off many an audiophile, including yours truly. The problem was that vinyl is recorded and mixed to RIAA specs (on master tape, originally), which is applicable to turntables and cartridges (and their frequency responses and characteristics). These were used, wrongly, to simply record on to CD, and the results were thin and tinny, b/c the CD bandwidth is much wider (broader) than a turntables cartridge/stylus. Once the CD geniuses figured this out, they began re-mastering the original tapes for CD's bandwidth, and, voila, CDs sounded darn good, w no turntable hiss ans pops. The best cartridges and stylus's bandwidth was approx 35-40 Hz to approx 10,000 Hz. The CD's bandwidth is virtually limitless, well past the ability of human hearing, in both the lows - the kind you can feel, but not hear - and the highs, where harmonic content is important and exists well past the human ear's ability to hear. An old audiophile story: When Telarc released their infamous version of The 1812 Overture on vinyl, initially, audiophiles were amazed to find the stylus completely jumping out of the groove when the canons enter (real canons, recorded live, w no compression! Frequency response to 4 Hz!). Not a cartridge made, no matter how expensive and exotic, could handle the canons at a high volume. When the CD was finally figured out and put right, audiophiles (myself included) were blowing out woofers left and right when those canon's unrestricted 4 Hz separated voice-coils around the world!

Anyway, once they got the CD put right, and came out w DDD (direct digital disc - Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms was the first one! All digital, no analog used in the chain from mike to master disc), many 'philes accepted CD as the limitless medium it was purported to be (incl myself). Many others stayed on the "vinyl only" road for many more years. There are still some pockets of vinyl loving holdouts, but most have admitted that CD is, in fact, superb!

Then the SACD (Super Audio CD), championed by Columbia, was known as high-resolution CD. Honestly, so real and life-like it was palpable! But, there in we get back to our original discussion: SACD died b/c the public fell in love w the convenience of MP3s, iPods, etc...Thankfully I scarfed up abt 400 SACDs while available! They also require a special SACD decoding-equipped CD player, which I have. :D

Geez, I could go on and on, but I gotta eat sometime, and play git and listen to Cds, and, and....

I hope this at least gives you something to chew on, as it were :beer:

Later gators!