You probably have a favorite format such as the CD or vinyl, but is there a format you refuse to buy, and why?
I don't have any problem buying an mp3, AAC, or hi-rez download. I also buy vinyl and CD.
Printable View
You probably have a favorite format such as the CD or vinyl, but is there a format you refuse to buy, and why?
I don't have any problem buying an mp3, AAC, or hi-rez download. I also buy vinyl and CD.
8 Track Cassettes. They suck.
I definitely will not buy anyone's mp3 unless it's in a lossless format. Way, way, way too much compression. Flat sound, blah!
can you still get mini discs and players or has the i pod killed it?
Here in the U.S. the minidisc went the way of the dodo bird years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamla617
soulster
i never had one but they were supposed to be good
what did you think of them?
I didn't like them because they were lossy. The sound just wasn't as good as uncompressed wav or aif files. CD-R was better. Also, CD-R doesn't have any SCMS [[Serial Copyright Management System), which disallowed one to make more than one digital clone.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamla617
Anyone remember digital tape?
i was working for sony broadcast in'86 on a short contract to fit out 3 outside broadcast vans.2 tv and 1 radio truck.
the tv trucks each cost £1,250,00k! radio truck £250k.i was furnishing the audio and video suits,6 tv/video cameras and editing suite,full mixing desk in a very small recording studio,some of you would have been on cloud 9.they were unbeleivable what they had on them.
that was the 1st time i'd heard of a DAT machine,you couldnt buy this stuff in the shops,tv/radio industry only.
sony issued a set of playing cards [[still got them)each one had a picture of peice of there product range.the cards came in a DAT cassette case,it was slightly thicker than the normal audio case.we played some stuff on the DAT thru' the audio suite.but anything would have sounded good going thru' that kit.the idiot that was testing the the suite wound the volume up with out any warning,i was stood next to some mega swedish speakers and my ears nearly exploded the air almost seemed solid.those speakers [[one off bespoke units) came in i had to DRILL about 20 holes on the back edge of both sides for brackets,5 grand a pair [[1986) and i'm drilling them,no room for mistakes,and no spares if i did!
a reel to reel video recorder,the BVH600 took 2 men to lift [[and struggle with) and cost a mere £60,000.
so i do remember DAT but never heard a normal shop bought version
Which one? DAT or the digital cassette?
i thought that was DAT,digital audio tape [[DCC) i just googled it and see that DCC didnt come out 'till '92.developed by phillips and matushita as an competitor to sony's MD and alternative to DAT,which hadnt caught on
DAT if recorded from digital source it would be an exact clone,unlike the DCC and non hd mini disc these use lossy data compression.i'm starting to understand this!i'd forgotten all about DCC.
DDC recorders can also play audio compact cassettes too,DAT machines couldnt
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamla617
DAT = Digital Audio Tape - It was to be the consumer version of digital audio, but the record labels essentially killed it by forcing SCMS. The pro machines were exempt.
DCC + Digital Audio Cassette - Came out in the early 90s. It bombed bit. It still had to be rewound and fast-forwarded, and it still had that damn SMCS. It was also in competition with Minidisc, which succeeded in Japan, mainly. If failed in the U.S..
soulster
what is SMCS? or scms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_...agement_SystemQuote:
Originally Posted by tamla617
Smcs,cp3,mp3,ddc,dat,cd-r,aac,dog.pta,fbi,cia,abc..is driving me-c-r-a-z-y eerrrrrhhhhhhaarrrrrrrrr@#!$$$%^&&^*[[***&^%$#@@!~~?????!!!!!eeerrrrrhhhh stoooooooooooooooppppppppp[i need a drink]eeerrrrhhhharrrr!!!!!
thanks soulster,very interesting article
now i remember the copy once only MDs'.my brother has an MD [[gathering dust now) but i never got to "play" with it.next time i see him i'll take a look at it.
I ain't downloading anything. Period!
Why? Just wonderin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyfunk
Well for one thing, I'm tired of being dictated as to how I listen to my music. I'm not fond of the sound of mp3's, ipods, or even the sound of computer speakers. I like to hear my music on a full bodied sound system. And I also believe that CD's that have been reissued since the mid-2000's have much better sound quality than when CD's first came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
I don't buy any digital audio formats or cassettes. Just records and, less often, CDs.
That's cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyfunk
As you all know by now, I am a big advocate of downloading hi-rez music. But, I also have my computer connected to my stereo system, or I stream from my personal server. That way I get audiophile quality sound.
Like you, i'm not fond of mp3, but I do listen to them in the car. I don't have to, but I do. I keep both lossless FLAC and mp3 copies of those lossless files. Like you, I also prefer to listen to the full-bodied sound on my home stereo. I can convert those lossless FLAC files into any other type of file that I desire, and retain the lossless. I keep three backups of each. And, if all else fails, I still vane my records and CDs stored away in boxes.
For me, it's a case-by-case of which CDs sound better. Some older ones sound better, some new CDs are better. But, I really hate the way Cds in the 2000s were compressed to death. In fact, a lot of CDs, like from bbr, are still done that way, and they son't sound very good as a result. I do buy gold CDs from Audio Fidelity when they issue a title I like.
I still buy used records to transfer to digital if need be, or to save money. Right now, i'm working on Norma jean [[Wright)'s album on Bearsville. I know it's on CD, but I enjoy doing the restoration work.
I won't buy digital audio for two reasons...one, I absolutely REFUSE to use my debit/credit card online, for safety reasons [[I don't think my computer is safe enough to protect me from theft), and two...I love having CD's/albums in my hands...I love liner notes, artwork, etc...all the things that are missing from an MP3 [[though I do have some music that my roommate downloaded for me from a torrent site that I have yet to listen to).
Best,
Mark
You can buy a pre-paid Visa, Mastercard, or Discover, or, in some cases, PayPal instead of your own credit/debit card.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark speck
Yeah, a lot of folks on Ebay would rather you pay with PayPal...but from what I've heard from some users, you need a degree in economics to understand it!
Best,
Mark
I've used paypal, and once you get it set up, it's very easy. But, buying something online with your own credit card is probably safer than going to a store these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark speck
Hell, I just got the Quazar album from bbr and it sounds excellent. I'm about to cop the Sweat Band album from bbr as well. Sometimes we overlook the fact that the stereo systems we used to play these original recordings on were in no way top of the line. Any CD reissue is a step up in terms of sound quality. I remember people complaining about the sound quality of the first Funkadelic CD reissues. I definitely didn't understand where they were coming from. To do a Pepsi challenge between the original albums and the CD reissues were like night and day to my ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
I don't know about you, but since 1983, my system has been pretty damn good!Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyfunk
Now, that's a joke! What they are doing to most CDs today, including those bbr CDs, is that they are compressing the crap out of them and boosting the bass. Truth is that the vast majority of master tapes are different in sound compared to the jacked-up CD remasters. Give a listen to the samples on HD tracks and compare them to CD remasters you have of them. I have heard master taps in person before. I hear what is done to them. The older vinyl is really closer to the tapes than the CDs. I can't say all CDs, new or old, are better. It is a case-by-case basis.Quote:
Any CD reissue is a step up in terms of sound quality.
Sometimes, the older CDs were pretty bad because they used bad tapes. They can get 1st generation tapes today, but then they screw them by trying to make the louder by using compression and EQ. You think they're better, but they just fuck with them the same way some amateur does with his own stereo.Quote:
I remember people complaining about the sound quality of the first Funkadelic CD reissues. I definitely didn't understand where they were coming from. To do a Pepsi challenge between the original albums and the CD reissues were like night and day to my ears.
The system that I had [[which was actually my sisters stereo system) was an all in one turntable-receiver and 8-track. That was the standard system for most of the people I knew at the time. The sound quality that they produced was decent but not super high quality. So yeah, any CD easily surpassed the those type of systems and wasn't a joke. Most people are not audiophiles [[not assuming that you are either) and that definitely goes for the people I grew up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
As far as the first Funkadelic CD's, only Let's Take It To The Stage had dissapointing sound quality which has been only been partially rectified on future reissues. I don't need to hear HD versions. The versions I have are just fine and more than serve my needs.
Oh yeah, I had one until September of 1981, when I saved enough money to go down to the local audio store and buy a good Nikko receiver and JVC turntable. The next year I bought some decent speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyfunk
Yes, I am, and proud of it! My father was one too, back in the early 60s. My ex-wife even became one while we were married. Hell, she wanted an SACD player more than I did!Quote:
Most people are not audiophiles [[not assuming that you are either)
The only audiophiles I know today are the ones I meet through internet message boards and recording industry types. There are a LOT of us out there. They own separate preamps, dual tube amps, two high-dollar turntables, studio monitors or mid-high grade speakers, DAC's...my boss just bought two mono blocks. It's just the circle of people I interact with these days.
I shudder in horror when I see people today actually listening to music on their smartphone speaker. We have seriously gone downhill in our collective and desire for quality sound.
So, have you heard any hi-rez recordings? How do you know what you don't need if you never heard them?Quote:
As far as the first Funkadelic CD's, only Let's Take It To The Stage had dissapointing sound quality which has been only been partially rectified on future reissues. I don't need to hear HD versions. The versions I have are just fine and more than serve my needs.
The sound quality of those original albums weren't much to write home about anyway. It was their homegrown feel that attracted me to them in the first place. All of the "chicken grease" in the mix of those early Funkadelic albums and some of the druggy mixes of the Parliament albums come through very well on the CD's I have. By the same token, I do own many of their albums on Japanese import CD's, so the sound is a little more...intelligent if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
It sounds like you're conflating the sound of your "record player" with the sound of the records. I don't know if you have a turntable/cart today, or of what quality they are if you do, but those records sounded a bit better than you seem to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyfunk
Oh no they didn't. I still have my original LP's. I've done vinyl to CD comparisons as well as original pressing to reissue vinyl. Not even close. The reissue vinyl sounds full, rich and dynamic. The original LP's just don't have that kind of full sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Wont buy MP3 unless a gun is put to my head.
If I have to, i'll buy a 320 kbps mp3. That's how I usually buy the occasional contemporary top 40 single if I am sure it won't show up on one of those "Now That's What I Call Music" CDs every three or four months.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie
High-bit AAC [[around 380-420 kbps) files can sound virtually indistinguishable from the CD. If iTunes went to that, I would gladly buy from them. It would be the ideal replacement for CD at that point. But, at their current 256, no way, Jose!
But, right now, i'm all about getting as close to the master tape as I can with these hi-rez files from HD Tracks, or vinyl. I'm just not cool with brickwalled CDs.