Listening to music

Originally Posted by Baz

Thanks Terry - they're Legacy Classic's!

Audio Consultants - Used Equipment Details



I listen to my MP3 players too now - especially considering I work outside and always have music going - I use a couple portable players including a Kilpsch igroove and a Logitech Pure-Fi Anywhere.





I also have some Creative Nano's and Stones





But the latest is my SanDisk Sansa



It's important to have options in life!

Baz--cool! You are one serious music gadgeteer.

Last year my wife bought me a Bose iPod dock, and I returned it because it just sounded terrible. The Bose system I bought last night sounds great, although maybe that's because it came with a pretty decent Pioneer receiver.

Terry

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by madcorgi

OK, help out with this question, which, I realize, will expose the true depth of my ignorance of matters audio. I have heard passing reference from audiophiles that iPods are lousy source devices for music. Why? Isn't digital digital?

My favorite source of true sound is my guitar, but alas, not everyone agrees.

Not all digital music is the same. Sound quality, as I understand it, depends on the digital sampling rate used in the compression of the music. Songs can be converted to AAC and MPEG3 in different levels of compression. The more a song is compressed, the lower the sampling rate, and the lesser quality of music.

Sounds travels in smooth waves. Digitizing unsmooths the wave. So instead of a smooth sine wave, music is translated into a bunch of flat plateaus that attempt to follow the smooth sine wave. (Think a bar graph with all the bars pushed together). The greater the sampling rate, (and the lower the compression), the smaller width these plateaus are, and thus, the digital 'wave' can follow the smooth wave more closely.

I recenbtly got an Apple TV, and wirelessly connect my iPad to it, which is connected to my Onkyo home system via TOSlink (digital fiber optic audio cable). I use Pandora internet radio a lot, and find it's near CD quailty sound is acceptable for the music I listen to (solo piano, some new age and classical, trance, lots of electronica music, and some rock) When I rip a CD to my iPad, I will turn up the sampling rate to near CD quzlity to get less 'drop outs' in the music, though my ears probably can't discern the difference.

While my Onkyo system is not a very high end system, I found that by balancing the sound through the 8 speakers (it is a 7.1 system), I can enjoy the quality of the sound without blasting the speakers. Quality should always preceed quantity (in this case, volume).

I also ran speakers to my kitchen, and my deck outside. Next up will be the bedrooms and garage.

-Z-man

OK, I think I understand. So the iPod itself alters the compression?

Is it correct that modern albums are recorded with so much compression because they will mostly be played on low quality devices, and the compression somehow covers this up?

Back in the stone age when I was writing and recording original music (1976-77), the studio I used in DC had one of the first 24 channel boards in the area. Recording was on 1-inch tape. I found some the other day in a box in our storage unit.

The producer had me sing through a new whiz bang device called--to my amusement--an Aphex Aural Exciter. I think this was an early compression-type device but I'm not sure. It seemed to improve my voice from horrible all the way up to merely bad.

A current web search shows they are still going strong. The Aural Exciter has been joined by a product called an "Optical Big Bottom."

Merry Christmas all.

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by madcorgi

OK, I think I understand. So the iPod itself alters the compression?

Well, the ability of your ipod to decompress the sound is just one of the limiting factors: the other is what bit rate (or sampling) was used to record the song itself. For example, most songs in iTunes are recorded with a bit rate of 72 or 144, IIRC. If you rip a CD to iTunes, I believe you can set the bit sampling to 244, which is at or near CD quality. (Note: my numbers may be off, but you get the idea). So -- if you record a song at a bit rate of 144, it may take up 3.2 MB. On the other hand, if you record the same song at a bit rate of 244, it will take up maybe 5MB. Less compression = more data saved = better quality of song.

These days, in my opinion, the biggest limiting factor in sound quality is the crappy headphones that most people use to listen to their music. Upgrading to even a $30 ear-bud headphones can make a huge difference.

So for the sake of storing more music on an iPod or other MP3 player, people will sacrifice quality in order to have more songs stored and available on their devices.

Is it correct that modern albums are recorded with so much compression because they will mostly be played on low quality devices, and the compression somehow covers this up?

It is more about having more songs available than having a low quality device. Most portable MP3 players (and iPod, iPad...etc) can play back near CD quality music. But most people prefer to sacrifice sound quality in order to store more songs.

Back in the stone age when I was writing and recording original music (1976-77), the studio I used in DC had one of the first 24 channel boards in the area. Recording was on 1-inch tape. I found some the other day in a box in our storage unit.

The producer had me sing through a new whiz bang device called--to my amusement--an Aphex Aural Exciter. I think this was an early compression-type device but I'm not sure. It seemed to improve my voice from horrible all the way up to merely bad.

A current web search shows they are still going strong. The Aural Exciter has been joined by a product called an "Optical Big Bottom."

Merry Christmas all.

Don't know too much about studio recording equipment, but for the consumer, music started to be stored digitally with the advent of the CD and the DAT (digital audio tape). Your Aphex Aural Exciter may have digitized your voice in order to clean it up a bit, but I suspect that the 1 inch tape stored the sound in analog format, not in digital format (unless it was DAT).

Merry Christmas to you too!
-Z-man.

[imcarthur]

Z described file compression well. It is useful for making music files small so you can carry all of your music around with you. Here is an example. The Eagles "Victim of Love."



On the left is the standard CD file ripped to wav & then 2 different compressions - AAC which is the iTunes download standard & a really small MP3 version. The smaller the bitrate, the less information you hear.

On the right is a 24/96 version - a high def version if you will. A flac (which is a file compression of sorts but lossless) & the totally uncompressed wav version of the same.

But what I was referring to in the post above was music compression which is done in the studio. Compression can be used to judiciously to 'even out' the waveform to create a coherent finished song. Overused on a whole song it can compress it for louder playback. Here is a video from Fab - a mixer buddy from NYC who explains the 'good' music compression well.



Ian

I'm always amazed at the breath of intelligence and knowledge on this board. Thanks guys.

Last night we watched the new Clint Eastwood baseball movie with the surround sound. Since sound plays a large role in the plot, it was very cool. Made Amy Adams look more luscious, too!

Terry

[iplagolf]

Last few years we've been listening to music on my wife's iPod and a docking station. I saw a pair of Infinity Reference Three speakers on Craig's List for $50 bucks. Bought them, re-foamed the woofers, bought a Pioneer SX-1000TD amp/tuner and a Technics SL-Q3 turntable and a Insignia CD player. WOW, I can't believe the difference. I've found the music again...