search for: in
 
advanced + submit your tab

+ submit your review

+ submit your article
fresh tabs / 0-9 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z / top 100 tabs

Have Your Ears Adjusted To MP3s?

artist: misc date: 10/21/2009 category: general music news
rating: 0 / votes: 0 

A study was conducted recently by a Stanford professor which concluded that younger generations prefer the sound of an MP3 over other higher quality formats. Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at the University conducted the study over six years on his students. Every year he asked new students from his classes to listen to samples of music in several musical formats from standard MP3s to higher fidelity uncompressed files equivalent to what would be heard on a Compact Disc.

According to the study, every year more and more students actually preferred the sound of MP3s, especially for rock music. Berger said that they've grown accustomed to what he calls the "percussive sizzle" or distortion found in most MP3s. He claims according tot he study, they're ears have adapted to thinking that is what music is supposed to sound like.

"I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality, but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s," said Berger who compared the trend to those who still prefer vinyl in preference to CD.

"Some people prefer that needle noise, the noise of little dust particles that create noise in the grooves, I think there's a sense of warmth and comfort in that."

With the rise in listenership of Internet Radio as well as streaming music sites like MySpace and Pandora, the study suggests that music fans are simply adjusting to prefer hearing music in the fidelity in which they listen to it most often in.

Some producers have also tried to cater for the MP3 generation by making music as loud as possible, which can mean a loss of musical range and detail.

"What you are hearing is that everything is being squared off and is losing that level of depth and clarity," said producer Stephen Street, the man behind hits from The Smiths, Morrissey, Blur and Kaiser Chiefs. "I'd hate to think that anything I'd slaved over in the studio is only going to be listened to on a bloody iPod."

Thanks for the report to AlternativeAddiction.com.

POSTED: 10/21/2009 - 10:13 am
print
share
subscribe to
More Misc news:
+ Top 10 UG News Articles Of 2011 entertainment 12/23/2011
+ It's The End Of The Year As We Know It: 2011 entertainment 12/23/2011
+ Slipknot, Black Sabbath And Metallica To Tour Together In 2012? upcoming tours 12/23/2011
+ Researchers Prove '27 Club' Is A Myth general music news 12/22/2011
+ Link Between Heavy Metal And Satanism Explored On Lebanese TV Show general music news 12/21/2011
+ view all
comments policy  168  comments posted, 10 removed | this article is 94% spam-free
     
Nirvanarien wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:52 am / quote |
Strange, im 14 years old an still prefer CD's or FLAC's.... Low quality really bothers me, 320 kb/s mp3 is the lowest im setteling for!
     
SergioA20 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:05 am / quote |
Those students that did that survey are dumb
How can you prefer something of lower quality?
     
UnaLaguna wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:06 am / quote |
I honestly can't tell the difference between a mid-high-quality mp3 and a CD. 128kbps or lower mp3s usually bother me though.

The difference between an mp3 and a FLAC is analagous to the difference between the JPG and PNG file formats (mp3 and JPG are both lossy, FLAC and PNG are both lossless). And again, I only notice the difference between JPG and PNG if the JPG's been highly compressed.
     
Comeback Kiddd wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:28 am / quote |
If it sounds pretty clear to me then im ok with anything as long as i enjoy the music
     
Jet_Black88 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:32 am / quote |
Low quality mp3's can really annoy me sometimes, if I'm paying attention to the cymbals...it sounds like someone is just rattling some tin foil.
     
Link12 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:36 am / quote |
Wow, that's a pointless survey.
     
Quicksand15 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:39 am / quote |
SergioA20 wrote:
How can you prefer something of lower quality?

My thoughts exactly...
I'm 18 and I don't get why so many people (especially younger generations of course) don't notice the sound difference or even care that there can be so much more to it.

For me, DVD-Audios or Super Audio CDs are the best way to experience music. Unfortunately, there are very few artists who really care enough about sound quality...
     
ctb wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:42 am / quote |
I rip audio CD's to WMA High Quality, and they sound shit-loads better than MP3s, which are also bigger in filesize.
     
NiTrO_FrEeZiNg wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:42 am / quote |
"He claims according tot he study, they're ears..."
Wow, how did he turn his students into ears?

How much credibility can a stud or article have when they misspell "their"?
     
Benjabenja wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:47 am / quote |
Terrible grammar in this article.
     
Henkdemachtige wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:49 am / quote |
NiTrO_FrEeZiNg wrote:

"He claims according tot he study, they're ears..."
Wow, how did he turn his students into ears?

How much credibility can a stud or article have when they misspell "their"?

Haha, i saw that to
UnaLaguna wrote:

I honestly can't tell the difference between a mid-high-quality mp3 and a CD. 128kbps or lower mp3s usually bother me though.

The difference between an mp3 and a FLAC is analagous to the difference between the JPG and PNG file formats (mp3 and JPG are both lossy, FLAC and PNG are both lossless). And again, I only notice the difference between JPG and PNG if the JPG's been highly compressed.


+1
     
shreducator wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:49 am / quote |
Vinyl....you can't beat it.
     
Dakkstar wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:55 am / quote |
I would rather listen to my cds than my mp3 player, that's for sure, but whatever floats people's boats. I miss my record player.
     
DavidsonTFP wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:55 am / quote |
kids must be deaf then.
     
we_built_a_tree wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:01 pm / quote |
I listen to mp3s of 192 kb/s (preferably higher) of the stuff I only have in digital form, but I listen to bought CDs most of the time. Sounds so much better.
     
Guitarfreak777 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:02 pm / quote |
DavidsonTFP wrote:

kids must be deaf then.


Some producers have also tried to cater for the MP3 generation by making music as loud as possible, which can mean a loss of musical range and detail.


Yes, it would appear you are correct sir.
     
Nilla Guerilla wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:03 pm / quote |
NiTrO_FrEeZiNg wrote:

"He claims according tot he study, they're ears..."
Wow, how did he turn his students into ears?

How much credibility can a stud or article have when they misspell "their"?


You realize the professor who conducted this study didn't type this up, right?

Anyway, the point behind this isn't that they simply prefer "lower quality" items, it's just that your ears adapt to a recognizable sound quality and preference comes out of that. For example, I prefer to hear a song on a local radio station rather than to hear it on CD.

It's just because that's what I feel like music is supposed to sound like. The seemingly-unnoticeable sound of radio frequency that fills in the gaps of songs where complete silence usually takes place feels more "real" to me. So yeah, the study's not pointless... if anything, I think it's pretty interesting.
     
ride-the-spiral wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:13 pm / quote |
Wow what a load of idiots! Having a preference to something... Silly students...

(Sarcasm btw)

Tbh I would rather like Mp3 over higher quality but the fact is that I prefer Flac and the like. It'd make my life easier if I preferred mp3
     
elvis32 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:15 pm / quote |
Low-Quality MP3 (96-112 kb/s) is shit, but it's useful when storage is a problem. But I prefer listening to CDs...

HQ 4ever!
     
megaironpriest wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:19 pm / quote |
I buy CDs so I can get the better sounding stuff
     
justinb904 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:20 pm / quote |
it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months
     
Msu_Man04 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:27 pm / quote |
128 kbs mp3s are fine for me. I also sorta worry about the amount of space they take up on my computer. .flacs are ridiculously large.

It depends. Some 128 kbs mp3s are TERRIBLE. Some/most are perfectly fine. But if it sounds like the drums' cymbals and/or hi-hats are underwater, there's a problem.
     
Tyler Durden wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:29 pm / quote |
justinb904 wrote:

it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months


this is the key right here. you can have the highest quality format, but if you are listening through dollar store earphones, then you are not going to hear the full range. My $75 Sony's have lasted me over 8 years and can make a lower quality mp3 sound just fine, compared to the junk ipod ear phones.
     
Prankster1990 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:31 pm / quote |
SergioA20 wrote:

Those students that did that survey are dumb
How can you prefer something of lower quality?


You learn what to like. The same goes for genres of music.

But to be honest, today I was listening to Pink Floyd on my mp3 player, and I thought 'OMG, my mp3 player sucks, this isn't how it's meant to be heard.'
So I think people notice the lack of some sounds.

Or maybe I just have a lousy mp3 player :P
     
ndschroede23 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:35 pm / quote |
justinb904 wrote:

it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months


I don't know anyone who has damaged earbuds in less than 6 months, without doing something to them that would damage any headphones.
     
raasbo wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:38 pm / quote |
CDs FTW.
     
Pat_s1t wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:39 pm / quote |
I don't prefer it, but all the music I listen to is in 128Kbps, just to save space.
     
Gakbez wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:42 pm / quote |
"they're ears"

Are they ears?
     
Guitarfreak777 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:46 pm / quote |
ndschroede23 wrote:

justinb904 wrote:

it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months

I don't know anyone who has damaged earbuds in less than 6 months, without doing something to them that would damage any headphones.


After using cheap headphones almost everyday for six months I have had many a pair die on me that way. I don't care to take my expensive headphones out when im just doing errans and things of the sort.
     
DimebagZappa wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:53 pm / quote |
This article is lame. Steven Street is lucky enough to have anyone listen to those crappy bands, who cares what quality it is. If you polish poo its still poo steve! Encodes have become prevalent for a reason, size. Do you want 200 amazingly clear, perfect master copy songs or do you want 1000 songs that still sound pretty good.....? Either way, your enjoying the music you like. Which is all that really matters.
     
ChucklesMginty wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:54 pm / quote |
I've always preferred the sound of CDs.
     
k90728 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 12:54 pm / quote |
Lol i like music live. RAW MUSIC.

As long as i can hear something the quality is fine.

Sometimes i think some bands over produce there records.
     
Baconfish wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:05 pm / quote |
I don't understand how anyone can listen to 128Kbps mp3s, they sound terrible. :/

Almost everything I have on my computer is mp3, but the lowest bitrate I'll go for is 192, and prefer to use "high quality" vbrs.
     
 nightraven   m   wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:25 pm / quote |
checked
     
thedarkblues06 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:27 pm / quote |
I use MP3 because it's the most popular to get. I don't necessarily care for the lack of quality, it's just the ease of use.

On topic, can iPods support FLAC? If so I'll prolly convert all my music.
     
seanchief2112 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:29 pm / quote |
My use my dad's clearaudio master solution turntable, 180g vinyl, through a pro logic tube amplifier and B&W speakers and that is the best sound quality ive ever heard. What you listen through is important too, flac files through poor speakers will suck aswell. 320kbs is the lowest i go, remember that good headphones and speakers make all the difference
     
Falcor Klaatu wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:30 pm / quote |
Test this yourself, get a mp3 and a wav or flac of the same song and compare them. The sound of cymbals will decay substantially faster on an mp3, its an easy way to pick out the difference. Most of those kids probably have hearing loss from listening too loud for too long with crap pod head phones.
     
perilouspete wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:35 pm / quote |
SergioA20 wrote:

Those students that did that survey are dumb
How can you prefer something of lower quality?


Dude, obviously they didn't know which format was which when they were listening to it. It's not their fault for preferring something that they're used to hearing. It's a study....quit pretending like you know any better.
     
'93 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:36 pm / quote |
i love my cds even though i only ave a few illlisten to those anyday ovr mp3s
     
The Chauffeur wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:50 pm / quote |
thedarkblues06 wrote:

I use MP3 because it's the most popular to get. I don't necessarily care for the lack of quality, it's just the ease of use.

On topic, can iPods support FLAC? If so I'll prolly convert all my music.


ooooohhh man, you idiot. mp3s won't get better when you convert them to flac.
     
MetalNick wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:53 pm / quote |
I mainly use mp3s, I however have a great sound system and I EQ my computer output as well, so I guess I'm fine with mp3. Usually go for 320k/s though.

I also do have to note, I significantly dislike using my ipod to listen to music. I mostly have it on when I'm doing something else, so I don't really notice the loss in quality.
     
sashki wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:54 pm / quote |
I can hear a pretty significant difference between CD's and MP3's, and I prefer the former, but that's probably because I grew up listening to CD's and only got my first proper MP3 player in June this year.
     
CaMacKid wrote on 10/21/2009 - 01:58 pm / quote |
If these companies would open up to other formats we wouldn't have kids getting used to crap like MP3. I admit all my files are in mp3 but that's because I don't have a portable player that uses other formats. I'm broke so I can't go out and find something good ATM.

MP3 ain't bad, but there is better. It just bugs me how companies prefer such a chained down format instead of much more open formats like Ogg Vorbis or FLAC.
     
guns for hire wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:02 pm / quote |
The Chauffeur wrote:

thedarkblues06 wrote:

I use MP3 because it's the most popular to get. I don't necessarily care for the lack of quality, it's just the ease of use.

On topic, can iPods support FLAC? If so I'll prolly convert all my music.

ooooohhh man, you idiot. mp3s won't get better when you convert them to flac.


this. What you mean is you'll prolly re-DL your entire music collection. Otherwise you're stuck with that quality.
     
farfaraway wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:06 pm / quote |
Stanford? PAH! No wonder this is a load of shit.
     
TheStoneGod wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:07 pm / quote |
wow.. nobody cares about this. once again, post real news!
     
MossyMan wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:13 pm / quote |
Let's be honest, most people who convert to mp3 listen to their music on the move. I do. So if there's an extra bit of fizz or the sound of percussion is cut early etc, I wouldn't even notice; the song is just background noise while I walk through town or whatever. Walk through a city on your way to work and test mp3 versus flac. If you can tell the difference you're probably 10 seconds away from being hit by a car.
     
hamsterman64 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:15 pm / quote |
Nirvanarien wrote:

Strange, im 14 years old an still prefer CD's or FLAC's.... Low quality really bothers me, 320 kb/s mp3 is the lowest im setteling for!


I'm with you 100%. Anything less than 320 kb/s really bugs me as well. Having the vocals and instruments melt into each other kind of defeats the entire purpose. I like being able to focus on the drums, bass, guitars, or vocalist whenever I choose, and if the mp3 quality blows, it's kinda hard to do that.

Basically, the masses suck, and so do the major labels that cater to them. If they want bad quality, offer cheaper suck-alternatives.
     
Bair wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:30 pm / quote |
I'm not sure why this matters? It's basically the same as what genre you listen to. People listen to what ever they enjoy. Some like 180 piece orchestra and others like some nut screaming basically nothing until he passes out. They both consider it "music".
     
 duncang   m   wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:31 pm / quote |
TheStoneGod wrote:

wow.. nobody cares about this. once again, post real news!


52 other people cared enough to comment.

Checked.
     
Chatboy 91 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:35 pm / quote |
The reason that they are used to it is because they're all still using there crappy iBuds and good sound quality sounds bad on them. Get them all even a low-end pair of Shure in-ear headphones or some full sized cans and they will definitely prefer lossless.
     
metallicafan616 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:44 pm / quote |
I don't know a single person my age who cares enough about music to buy new headphones, and most of them only listen to music because its trendy to have an ipod!

I prefer the sound of CDs. Also, with some albums, having really tinny speakers can make them sound amazing - especially the drum sounds.
     
thedarkblues06 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:45 pm / quote |
The Chauffeur wrote:

thedarkblues06 wrote:

I use MP3 because it's the most popular to get. I don't necessarily
care for the lack of quality, it's just the ease of use.

On topic, can iPods support FLAC? If so I'll prolly convert all my
music.

ooooohhh man, you idiot. mp3s won't get better when you convert them to flac.


wow. Gee thanks for that. Asshole. I didn't know what the crap it was, I just thought it was higher quality. Forgive me for being previously ignorant. Shithead.

And for the record I have my music collection at 320kbps I just don't
want to rip 40GB of CDs. Deuces.
     
DEATHPANDA wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:48 pm / quote |
People are forgetting the main reason people listen to mp3s in the first place; because they're freely available to download. No gives a **** anymore. Give the music industry 5 years before it collapses and caves in on itself. Music will live on in the form of live performance, which is bad for ****s like Jonas Brothers who wouldn't have a clue what to do without other people doing everything for them, and with no record sales by mindless children they will be doomed, sucking cocks in alley ways for minimum wage. Not a gleam of hope.
     
MetalUpYourRear wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:52 pm / quote |
See, I love high quality music. BUT, half the stuff I listen to was poorly recorded in the 80's, and rare as hell, so I can only find downloads of it in lower quality mp3s/wmas. It sucks...
     
NemX162 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:56 pm / quote |
thedarkblues06 wrote:

The Chauffeur wrote:

thedarkblues06 wrote:

I use MP3 because it's the most popular to get. I don't necessarily
care for the lack of quality, it's just the ease of use.

On topic, can iPods support FLAC? If so I'll prolly convert all my
music.

ooooohhh man, you idiot. mp3s won't get better when you convert them to flac.

wow. Gee thanks for that. Asshole. I didn't know what the crap it was, I just thought it was higher quality. Forgive me for being previously ignorant. Shithead.

And for the record I have my music collection at 320kbps I just don't
want to rip 40GB of CDs. Deuces.


Yeah, there was no reason for him to call you an idiot. He's probably just a lonely person looking to lash out.

Cool article though, although it makes me feel like my file format is ripping me off, haha.
     
rebugger75 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 02:58 pm / quote |
so...
a) good headphones/speakers
b) good quality rips (320k, VBR or FLAC),

and probably

c) good music

...is what you need. i'm cool with that. i like focusing on different instruments, and hearing all the effects when they're there, or the full range of of a solo instrument. but honestly (with the speakers i've got) i just can't tell the difference bewteen CD & 256k VBR and above. and it's different for different people i guess. my sister is more than happy with 128k's and wma's (oh the horror...)

but each to his own, i guess. if you're gonna stick to your 10-year old britney spears in 128k then i really aint bothered much, but never assume there isn't a difference just because you can't hear it or feel it.
     
rebugger75 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:01 pm / quote |
seanchief2112 wrote:

My use my dad's clearaudio master solution turntable, 180g vinyl, through a pro logic tube amplifier and B&W speakers and that is the best sound quality ive ever heard. What you listen through is important too, flac files through poor speakers will suck aswell. 320kbs is the lowest i go, remember that good headphones and speakers make all the difference


you lucky, lucky bastard! cheers man.
     
ndschroede23 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:01 pm / quote |
hamsterman64 wrote:

Nirvanarien wrote:

Strange, im 14 years old an still prefer CD's or FLAC's.... Low quality really bothers me, 320 kb/s mp3 is the lowest im setteling for!

I'm with you 100%. Anything less than 320 kb/s really bugs me as well. Having the vocals and instruments melt into each other kind of defeats the entire purpose. I like being able to focus on the drums, bass, guitars, or vocalist whenever I choose, and if the mp3 quality blows, it's kinda hard to do that.

Basically, the masses suck, and so do the major labels that cater to them. If they want bad quality, offer cheaper suck-alternatives.


I agree totally. It's evil, malicious, and ignorant for corporations to try to please as many people as they can. Don't they know that the dollars and opinions of elitists are more important than those of everyone else?
     
Misfit-FTB wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:03 pm / quote |
NiTrO_FrEeZiNg wrote:

"He claims according tot he study, they're ears..."
Wow, how did he turn his students into ears?

How much credibility can a stud or article have when they misspell "their"?


Well, you clearly still understood so I don't see what it matters. Grammar is irrelevant.

Anyways, if it sounds good; I listen to it. I don't pay attention to that shit.
     
-heartbreaker- wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:11 pm / quote |
I listen to mostly vinyls (the far superior format!)
     
FearOfTheDuck wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:18 pm / quote |
I'm nearly 18 and cannot stand low quality mp3's, i don't download music off the internet, CD's and Vinyl are perfect and i prefer having the actual CD/record, its just nicer and you get the awesome artwork. You can't really see it that well on your ipod.
     
padgea7x wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:21 pm / quote |
personally I can't tell the difference between mp3 and other formats, so i'm not bothered.

But mp3 is very very popular
     
Metallicam wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:22 pm / quote |
ndschroede23 wrote:

hamsterman64 wrote:

Nirvanarien wrote:

Strange, im 14 years old an still prefer CD's or FLAC's.... Low quality really bothers me, 320 kb/s mp3 is the lowest im setteling for!

I'm with you 100%. Anything less than 320 kb/s really bugs me as well. Having the vocals and instruments melt into each other kind of defeats the entire purpose. I like being able to focus on the drums, bass, guitars, or vocalist whenever I choose, and if the mp3 quality blows, it's kinda hard to do that.

Basically, the masses suck, and so do the major labels that cater to them. If they want bad quality, offer cheaper suck-alternatives.

I agree totally. It's evil, malicious, and ignorant for corporations to try to please as many people as they can. Don't they know that the dollars and opinions of elitists are more important than those of everyone else?


Hahaha +1
     
Kapalen wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:25 pm / quote |
Somebody find out what they listened on. I want numbers! What is a study without numbers!?
     
kyngofhearts wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:27 pm / quote |
i make no claims to be able to tell the difference (withholding extreme examples of compression), but i pretty much listen to nothing but mp3s through headphones (usually on high volumes), so i'm no stranger to the distortion, and i recognize it's there.
but having a file be more compressed or distorted doesn't change the notes they hit, or the notes you hear. and that's what conveys the mood of the song (and isn't that the whole point of music?)
recorded audio's medium will be constantly changing, and each medium will have downsides. that needlenoise they mentioned in the article? i can't stand it, it puts my teeth on edge.
ultimately if you're Recording music at all, that's the mistake. if you're a quality-junkie just stick to live music, since nothing will ever capture quality like actually hearing the music played.
if you need recorded music, suck it up. no method of recording or mixing will make it Flawless to all ears, particularly when people of different generations have different preferences of what style of recording to hear.
lol no matter what you do you won't be able to please everyone out there, and these arguments are petty. it's not as if you can't hear the music through all the compression, and that's the whole reason you hit 'play' to begin with.
     
beneharris wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:36 pm / quote |
it could be just as simple as its not that they liked the lower quality stuff better, they are just more used to it, so they didn't know any better.

its probably dumb that he said that they enjoy it better
     
reignofrock wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:36 pm / quote |
Mp3s more popular... well also they're more universal, Jesus. This is stupid, mp3s work on any damn player in contrast to mp4s, wmas, and all that jazz. Of course it's going to mean they get the best response.
     
voodoochild23 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:42 pm / quote |
I think what people should do is stick to higher quality formats, though i have no idea what they are, vinyls? whatever, stick to them for like a month

and then go back to mp3, and see if you can tell

I mean listening to one "flac" track and then one mp3 straight after probably has no effect

I totally get what the man in the article is saying about 'getting used to' the quality. I'm very passionate about the atmosphere and tone of a song, and if the higher quality formats enhance it, i for one will look to 'get used' to those as soon as i can figure out what the hell they are and where i find them

I will say, that CDs and mp3s dont sound different to me. My hi-fi is pretty crap though, perhaps thats the reason
     
The^Unforgiven wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:42 pm / quote |
As much as I like music I've got to admit I really don't even hear the difference between mp3s and CD, even when listening through the same amplifier and speakers. It's a bit strange, actually, as when it comes to things like the tone when I play guitar, I'm very picky.
     
Oneirogenic wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:56 pm / quote |
I think the main reason most of us notice the difference and care about the difference between low and high quality file types is that we are all musicians. Musicians tend to listen more critically to music than the average person would, hence why we notice things such as a shorter cymbal decay or whatever. With more people getting used to listening to mp3s and other such files higher quality files wouldn't matter as much to them especially since they are more inconvenient in terms of storage, portability, and accessibility. I prefer the higher quality files when I listen to music for enjoyment but if I'm on the go or busy the file quality is virtually unnoticeable.
     
r0ckth3d34n wrote on 10/21/2009 - 03:59 pm / quote |
The major differences I hear in music comes from either the KBS, and usually I'm listening to 192 KBS or higher and when I'm using my SkullCandy Ink'd earbuds or my speakers.

The Ink'd earbuds have to be the greatest revolution in hearing music my ears have ever received. I'm not telling everyone to go out and buy them, but for $20, they are the best $20 I've ever spent on earbuds.

Setting up the proper EQ on your MP3 Player or whatever you use to listen to music helps. Most of the presets are crap. I can't stand the "Rock" preset on my MP3 player, so I use "Funk." Typically, funk, jazz and pop presets have the best sound for all genres.

I'm not a DJ. I wouldn't know what any of the individual sliders themselves do.

I haven't listened to a CD in ages, I normally just download music from iTunes. This article makes me want to compare the sounds of MP3 vs. CD, with the Ink'd earbuds.

Pretty interesting, to be honest...
     
jordanzio wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:03 pm / quote |
i'm an flac junkie..... if i can get it on flac i will. otherwise i try and stick to 320Kb's mp3. the better depth and clarity the better
     
Sean-Man wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:07 pm / quote |
I do prefer CD and LPs, but im too broke ass to go out and buy them
     
ayreon37 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:17 pm / quote |
The problem is often one of two things... many people simply have a hard time distinguishing high quality and low quality music, simply because they have untrained ears. If you've never heard multiple formats, or if you're not musically inclined at all, you probably won't notice it much.

The other problem is that people listening to low quality music that would be low quality music on any format (here's lookin' at you, Nickelback and Britney Spears) can't find much to complain about... it either sounds like crap or it sounds like crap.

Thank you, that is all.
     
Geldin wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:17 pm / quote |
To be entirely honest, I can barely hear the difference between 180 kbps and 1080 kbps (I've tried a blind test before to make sure). I can hear the difference between lower bitrates like 64 to 128 kbps, but aside from that, there's no audible difference.
     
m0p wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:27 pm / quote |
"The MP3 generation" is just a euphemism for "the stupid generation". It escapes me how anyone would prefer MP3 to CDDA or vinyl, if they're used to MP3 or not. It doesn't take a trained ear and an acquired palette to notice the distortion and artifacts in MP3s and it doesn't take a genius to realise that the copy without the aforementioned distortion and artifacts is the superior one.

Then again, considering the kind of music the majority of the youth of this generation listens to (Lady GaGa, trance/electro trash, generic gangsta rap, pathetic generic indie which sounds lo-fi even at full quality, etc), it's not surprising that their inferior preferences extend to their choice of audio format.

I can hear the difference between ~192kbps VBR and 320kbps CBR, and the only reason I'd ever use the former is for portable devices with limited storage space. In my "main" collection on my computer that I only listen to with decent headphones (and eventually, a headphone amp of some kind), nothing less than FLAC will do, and I'll only accept MP3 if nothing else is available and I don't have the original CD or vinyl anymore.
     
 Lemoninfluence   m   wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:31 pm / quote |
checked.
     
avengedchicken wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:34 pm / quote |
mp3's sole advantage is in their mobility

because of this, and this alone, i prefer them to cds.

with good headphones the difference is barely noticable, and only if you're *looking* for something to bitch about.

[quote]m0p wrote:

Then again, considering the kind of music the majority of the youth of this generation listens to (Lady GaGa, trance/electro trash, generic gangsta rap, pathetic generic indie which sounds lo-fi even at full quality, etc), it's not surprising that their inferior preferences extend to their choice of audio format.

^ what he said
     
metallicafan616 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:36 pm / quote |
Geldin wrote:

To be entirely honest, I can barely hear the difference between 180 kbps and 1080 kbps (I've tried a blind test before to make sure). I can hear the difference between lower bitrates like 64 to 128 kbps, but aside from that, there's no audible difference.
Geldin wrote:

To be entirely honest, I can barely hear the difference between 180 kbps and 1080 kbps (I've tried a blind test before to make sure). I can hear the difference between lower bitrates like 64 to 128 kbps, but aside from that, there's no audible difference.


Yes there is, it's just that only high quality audio systems will pick up on it. For instance, if you put a cheap head into a cheap cab and compare it to a great head through the cheap cab it still won't sound good. plug them both into a great cab and the difference will be phenomenal.
     
Waterboy799 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:37 pm / quote |
i don't particularly mind lower quality mp3's, but if i can get 320 kbps, i'll take it any day over 128 kbps. i can tell the difference too, and most of my music is in 320 kbps, but i'm just one of those people that doesn't care all that much.
     
Jako215 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 04:57 pm / quote |
Thanks for this article now I cant listen to my music with the same emotion knowing there is a sound difference .
     
tenacioust04 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:11 pm / quote |
Give me vinyl anyday!
     
Metal_Militia15 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:13 pm / quote |
To me it sounds like the people surveyed were ignorant to file quality.

"MP3" Player? Well then mp3 must be the one for me! *Checks mp3* in the box.
     
actaderock wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:14 pm / quote |
I think CDs sound better...
     
Lil Macker wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:15 pm / quote |
I don't really know why people are getting worked up about this so much, and calling people stupid just for listening to music (and slagging off their music tastes as well) in a preffered way. Not everyone sits down and concentrates on the music, and to be honest, if I'm doing something else, even like walking, the sound quality doesn't really annoy me that much.

It's only music.
     
Muserule1234567 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:23 pm / quote |
have to have Quality Cd for me but dont mind mp3s i dont know why their getting worked up about Mp3s they are fine as well plus its not da Mp3s its da damn cheap headphones i bought a pair for €50 and da quality is unbelievable as they say in this day and age you get what you pay for.
     
jean_genie wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:28 pm / quote |
SergioA20 wrote:

Those students that did that survey are dumb
How can you prefer something of lower quality?

My Saab is an older model. My dad's BMW is an older model. This is how we can afford these things.

That said, I like driving both of those cars much more than driving my friend's brand new BMW with all-wheel-drive and some other stuff. The new car drives so well thar I can't feel the road, and I feel like it makes me a sloppy driver. This is no different than students saying they liked the 'sizzle' of .mp3s, as it is not necessarily a loss of quality, but an effect of of loss of quality.

Now if I had the money, I'd buy a new BMW and put stiffer suspension springs in it so I could feel the road again. This would be like having a good hi-fi system, and turning up the treble. Which is what I do.
     
TonyIommi2557 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:38 pm / quote |
Rip all of my music in MP3, but in v0 over here, and don't notice TOO MUCH of a quality difference between that and FLAC. There still is a difference, no doubt, but only very slightly, and I'm running on limited hard drive space, so that's what I settle for.
     
necrosis1193 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:40 pm / quote |
16 years old.

Vinyl > MP3 IMO.

If I ever make it anywhere I intend to make sure my music is released on LP's as well as CD's. I'd use them myself if I owned a record player and the quality didn't degrade after each use.

This study is inaccurate. Or I'm an exception. Or something.
     
JD Blue Venom wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:41 pm / quote |
DEATHPANDA wrote:

People are forgetting the main reason people listen to mp3s in the first place; because they're freely available to download. No gives a **** anymore. Give the music industry 5 years before it collapses and caves in on itself. Music will live on in the form of live performance, which is bad for ****s like Jonas Brothers who wouldn't have a clue what to do without other people doing everything for them, and with no record sales by mindless children they will be doomed, sucking cocks in alley ways for minimum wage. Not a gleam of hope.


LOL!
     
FriscoAnderson wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:42 pm / quote |
I honestly don't care either way... I didn't know that there was a difference... I just wanna' hear my rock'n'roll... LOL... Later...
     
jean_genie wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:42 pm / quote |
I like how people post their ages. Like it's a badge of pride to prefer vinyl at a young age.
     
TehShiz wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:42 pm / quote |
DimebagZappa wrote:

This article is lame. Steven Street is lucky enough to have anyone listen to those crappy bands, who cares what quality it is. If you polish poo its still poo steve! Encodes have become prevalent for a reason, size. Do you want 200 amazingly clear, perfect master copy songs or do you want 1000 songs that still sound pretty good.....? Either way, your enjoying the music you like. Which is all that really matters.


LOL why wouldn't anyone go for 200 songs of AMAZING quality? You're insane. Higher memory hard drives become increasingly cheaper by the year, so unless you decide to fill up your computer with songs you're only going to listen to once, you'll have enough room to have very many high quality songs on your computer. How about enjoying actual sound for a change? Soon noone will have a reason to sacrifice quality for space
     
hmcguire wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:52 pm / quote |
i still listen to my record player
     
BrixDK wrote on 10/21/2009 - 05:55 pm / quote |
I would use FLAC if they did'nt filled up so much space!
     
Jondy wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:02 pm / quote |
live music>recorded
     
rockinguy33 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:03 pm / quote |
in an mp3, they take out the sounds that appear on a cd that your ears can't even hear. they are either to high or low to your brain to even process so your ears hear them. so then you think "doesn't seem like much of a difference to me". well duh - that's because you can't even hear the edited sounds. :headbang:
     
Muserule1234567 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:03 pm / quote |
Jondy wrote:

live music>recorded

oh yea forgot about that
     
hippieboy444 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:14 pm / quote |
Can someone explain FLAC? PM me if you can. I don't get it
     
ProgMetalDT wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:15 pm / quote |
Yeah I'm 17 and I like cds, MP3's just don't sound good to my ear. CD's on the other hand sound great
     
Bluesrocker5150 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:17 pm / quote |
NiTrO_FrEeZiNg wrote:

"He claims according tot he study, they're ears..."
Wow, how did he turn his students into ears?

How much credibility can a stud or article have when they misspell "their"?


this is a UG mistake, has nothing to do with the people that actually did the study. notice the website you are on...
     
SkepsisMetal wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:24 pm / quote |
Its just a generation line, nothing more. Younger people are brought up on MP3 quality, therefore have a disposition toward them, whereas older people will prefer CDs. Im only 18 so I can speak for anyone else really, but I do prefer CDs, and vinyls actually. But mp3s are just more convenient
     
BassistBush wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:37 pm / quote |
interesting article, wierdly enough i've got a cheap sony walkman - freinds complain about it being quiet, but it gives me the same sound quality as a cd, i definatly notice when someone gives me there expensive ipod to flick through and all the records are tainted with distortion lol + they tend to boost all frequency's to the max lol
     
deadlyMETAL wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:39 pm / quote |

Wait a minute!! This is completely ambiguous to me, MP3s of "low quality" could mean anything!! They didn't give a single bit-rate to compare by! If they think 128Kbps is a low-quality MP3, then they should have brought that up - that way, we could tell what they were talking about!

Obviously, a 320Kbps MP3 is undoubtedly high-quality and generally will not have that "percussive sizzle" they talked about. But they failed to mention that, and have presented this article in a way that says that all MP3s are inferior in sound quality to compact discs! What do they think we put our MP3s on when we don't have an MP3 player?

Misleading article! Get your facts and resubmit this, please!
     
s-o-u-l-f-l-y wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:42 pm / quote |
Hmmmn. High Qual MP3s with good earphones (in ear for me) and a fair bit of bass usually do the trick. But to be honest...good old CDs in stero system at high volumes cant be beat.
     
Muserule1234567 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:42 pm / quote |
BassistBush wrote:

interesting article, wierdly enough i've got a cheap sony walkman - freinds complain about it being quiet, but it gives me the same sound quality as a cd, i definatly notice when someone gives me there expensive ipod to flick through and all the records are tainted with distortion lol + they tend to boost all frequency's to the max lol


i use sony headphones they are quality besides ipods are about quantity of sound sony are about quality
     
TheBassment wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:42 pm / quote |
I'm 21 and all the music i have on my hard drive is no less than 256kb's. Most are either V0 or 320kbs. I don't have any problem with it but i would never ever settle for such low quality compressed mp3s like 128s. Those sound that shit.
     
Muserule1234567 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:47 pm / quote |
wait Bands record on computers there fore making the song an mp3 (most prof recorders) witch is then burned onto cds so realy cds are mp4s
     
Muserule1234567 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:47 pm / quote |
Muserule1234567 wrote:

wait Bands record on computers there fore making the song an mp3 (most prof recorders) witch is then burned onto cds so realy cds are mp4s


sorry mp3s
     
Limaj_daas wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:47 pm / quote |
I prefer flacs and 360kbps files. And i think he maybe talking about the whole loudness war thing, i hate it. And no, I haven't gotten used to it.
     
Captain Sadler wrote on 10/21/2009 - 06:51 pm / quote |
I don't know. I buy CD's, put 'em on my iPod, and they sound fine to me. I rarely listen to my CD's in their original format anymore, not even in the truck thanks to a handy iPod jack...
     
SomeBlueKind wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:18 pm / quote |
And we are granting any credence to a 'study' conducted by a music professor because? Any person trained in the sciences will tell you that no conclusions like the ones stated are valid.
     
breadstick wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:20 pm / quote |
TBH I've never noticed much of a difference. I think that sound quality is mostly due to the earphones/headphones.
     
lethaldosage45 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:24 pm / quote |
Nirvanarien wrote:

Strange, im 14 years old an still prefer CD's or FLAC's.... Low quality really bothers me, 320 kb/s mp3 is the lowest im setteling for!


This kid has it right.
     
l)ragonForce wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:25 pm / quote |
k90728 wrote:

Lol i like music live. RAW MUSIC.

As long as i can hear something the quality is fine.

Sometimes i think some bands over produce there records.

haha Raw music +1
     
Rhoads_1096 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:32 pm / quote |
I miss my dads records
My mom made us get rid of them, what a shame, just threw them out, over 250 of them. We have a really high quality sound sytem, so I listen to my CDs in that.
     
chrisast wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:42 pm / quote |
I prefer CD's as well but as Jello said, "give me convienience or give me death".
     
Daneeka wrote on 10/21/2009 - 07:45 pm / quote |
I own a Sennheiser headphone which costs more than an ipod, have external soundcard and have a DIY headphone amplifier. Most of my music is in FLAC format.

Despite that, i can still enjoy music from youtube through notebook speakers, and this is a deadly combination.

But one thing bugs me. I think in the 70's, there were really few people who could enjoy for example Dark Side Of The Moon in its full glory.
Now when the consumer electronics getting cheaper and better (at least until the birth of mp3) the music's quality started to drop. (overcompression, clipping, lossy formats etc.)
     
VanTheKraut wrote on 10/21/2009 - 08:21 pm / quote |
So wait... the people who they surveyed acknowledged that they knew MP3's were lower quality, but said they preferred them. Thats like me going "Taco Bell is ****ing nasty... I like their Burritos!"
     
cotton3434 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 08:22 pm / quote |
ndschroede23 wrote:

justinb904 wrote:

it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months

I don't know anyone who has damaged earbuds in less than 6 months, without doing something to them that would damage any headphones.


Me. I go through a pair per month or so. That said, I have my iPod on me all the time, so... could probably use some of these expensive headphones instead of the $10 ones I have, lol.
     
lt22 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 08:23 pm / quote |
mp3 < other digital formats < cd < vinyl < live

that said, mp3s are common, small, and convenient.
     
Ponomar wrote on 10/21/2009 - 08:47 pm / quote |
Take a listen to Metallica's new album Death Magnetic on high volume and you will see what bad quality is, compared to just about anything else that is. I'm not bagging on Metallica though, I love them, I blame Rick Rubin for not producing it right.
     
Shmuh wrote on 10/21/2009 - 09:03 pm / quote |
"According to the study, every year more and more students actually preferred the sound of MP3s, especially for rock music. Berger said that they've grown accustomed to what he calls the "percussive sizzle" or distortion found in most MP3s. He claims according tot he study, they're ears have adapted to thinking that is what music is supposed to sound like."

God ****ing dammit, it's THEIR not they're.
     
LocalDealer14 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 09:17 pm / quote |
Captain Sadler wrote:

I don't know. I buy CD's, put 'em on my iPod, and they sound fine to me. I rarely listen to my CD's in their original format anymore, not even in the truck thanks to a handy iPod jack...


im the same way, i put all my cd's on my ipod and listen to music that way. sounds good, and i have good headphones. and i dont download music at all either.
     
NathanWolff wrote on 10/21/2009 - 09:21 pm / quote |
this is a correlation, it doesn't mean anything.
     
 Scourge441   m   wrote on 10/21/2009 - 09:29 pm / quote |
BrixDK wrote:

I would use FLAC if they did'nt filled up so much space!

This, pretty much. I don't have enough hard drive space to keep all of my music lossless.

If they can improve the data compression so they can get lossless quality in a much smaller file, then I'll go nuts ripping CD's and downloading lossless music. Until then, I'm going with higher-bitrate mp3's. I don't have a good enough sound system to tell the difference anyway.

Checked.
     
Brave Moonlight wrote on 10/21/2009 - 09:42 pm / quote |
Some producers have also tried to cater for the MP3 generation by making music as loud as possible

Which is really annoying. >:
     
jrcsgtpeppers wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:06 pm / quote |
Nothing beats hearing Abbey Road on Vinyl. It sounds as if the Beatles are in my room with me!
But I listen to my CD"s more than my iPod. WHy would I want to listen to the MP3 file of the actual CD? I only like iPods and stuff for school because my CD player doesn't fit it my pocket.
     
scawti wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:12 pm / quote |
People say I'm crazy when I say CD's sound way better than Mp3s. Can tell the difference immediately.
     
Okeefe Is Legit wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:16 pm / quote |
I honestly can't tell if an mp3 of lower quality unless it's 120kb/s or if I compare them to FLAC. I'd sacrifice quality (within reason) for space any day.
     
cedaguol wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:25 pm / quote |
I love FLAC, or 320 kbps MP3s at least.
     
sonoflife wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:40 pm / quote |
vinyl will always sound best. you hear more, and its not cold or harsh. boosted lows and highs kill the ears. everyone should listen to Dark Side of The Moon on vinyl and experience what real music is.
     
Bitches nBagels wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:47 pm / quote |
that needle noise annoys the shit out of me
     
crazy8rgood wrote on 10/21/2009 - 10:55 pm / quote |
"Some producers have also tried to cater for the MP3 generation by making music as loud as possible, which can mean a loss of musical range and detail."

Really? They're actually trying to make the music have LESS detail?

What a load of bullshit.
     
buddyboombotz wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:05 pm / quote |
I don't care much for quality, though I would like a good pair of headphones. I just like the bass being in it for a change. I've never cared enough to get high rate audio files. I would like to hear the same song on multiple formats though. See if I've destroyed my ears yet or not.
     
Ranting Thespia wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:06 pm / quote |
Give me quality, or give me death! . . . or a cheeseburger.
     
ndschroede23 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:09 pm / quote |
Hooray for getting my comments mysteriously cut off!

What I was going to say, I found that 80% of my music is less than 200kbps. I haven't noticed any serious losses in sound, compared to my higher quality files, but I wonder if I would if I attempted to upgrade a large portion of those
     
AA00P wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:10 pm / quote |
Listening to black metal has more or less rendered any ability I may have had to tell the difference between high and low quality formats null and void.
     
GibsonMan321 wrote on 10/21/2009 - 11:25 pm / quote |
I listen to 256 Kbps AAC's, when I hear some lower bitrates on my friends iPods, they tell me they rip them off YouTube, it sounds like shit I don't know how they do it. I also think headphones have a lot to do with the sound.
     
b_flo wrote on 10/22/2009 - 12:01 am / quote |
It's following history....VHS over Beta, Cassettes Tapes over Master Analog Tapes, CD's over Vinyl, CD's over SACD's, Nintendo over SEGA....nothing new! It's all about the marketing and price. For me, lossless is the way to go. One thing they got right was Blu-ray over DVD HD. Best headphones are Ultimate Ears, but most consumer's don't know about it, coz it's expensive and aimed more at the Pro-audio level. If I had a $1000, I'd buy those customized ones....3 or 4 way cans.
     
wolfy808 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 01:25 am / quote |
To me, as long as I have a good set of headphones and the EQ is good, I couldn't care less if my mp3's are "low-quality" or "sterile". Like Eddie Van Halen always said "If it sounds good, it is good."
     
TorturedSoul666 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 01:32 am / quote |
Who really ****ing cares at the end of the day? Is this going to stop you from listening to music, probably ****ing not.
     
witmachine wrote on 10/22/2009 - 01:54 am / quote |
this is actually very important news... pro audio may soon mean nothing. keep the files 320 kbps or FLAC at least. i love the sound of vinyl, too.
     
Sham-Rock wrote on 10/22/2009 - 02:45 am / quote |
Personally i prefer FLAC but my Iphone doesnt play that file type so m4a it is for my on the go music but at home its either Vinyl or Flac or very high quality mp3s 320 kbps
     
3 days grace14 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 02:47 am / quote |
have to admit I love spinning my vinyls
     
starfire666 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 03:28 am / quote |
interesting article, I listen to tons of mp3 but I still prefer buying original CDs should I happen to have the money :
     
jthm_guitarist wrote on 10/22/2009 - 03:32 am / quote |
Magnetic tape is where it's at.
     
ihavenoname93 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 03:33 am / quote |
the real joke here is on the people who care what they listen to stuff on.

give me a song on vinyl, CD, MP3, or anything else. to be honest, i really dont give a f*ck.
     
Rokeman wrote on 10/22/2009 - 03:48 am / quote |
Wouldn't everyone want the type of quality where it sounds like the band is in the room with you? I don't understand why they wouldn't, apart from laziness and indifference.
     
DeathAndMyDecay wrote on 10/22/2009 - 05:40 am / quote |
Depending on who mixes and all that good stuff also determine the final overall master of a cd. I like artwork too so it's always nice to just buy a cd instead of downloading shitty mp3 files. Mp3s make me feel cheap when listening to them. Imagine wearing cheap headphones and listening to mp3s all day...
     
mergapoot wrote on 10/22/2009 - 05:42 am / quote |
a good quality CD played through a good sound system can't be beaten in my opinion. My dad has a 10K bang olufsen audio system and dear god the sound out of it genuinely makes you feel like its being played live.
     
aoteroa_gurl wrote on 10/22/2009 - 05:53 am / quote |
Vinyl FTW!
     
SOADriff wrote on 10/22/2009 - 06:44 am / quote |
You people are forgetting that 90% of these kids are just ignorant. I'm 14 myself and i know so many people that listen to songs only because they are 'catchy'. In other words, this study proved that most kids are just plain stupid.
     
DonJulio wrote on 10/22/2009 - 07:34 am / quote |
SOADriff wrote:

You people are forgetting that 90% of these kids are just ignorant. I'm 14 myself and i know so many people that listen to songs only because they are 'catchy'. In other words, this study proved that most kids are just plain stupid.

+1
     
chippy_666 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 08:00 am / quote |
i use high quality mp3s at the moment, but that is because when i was using WMA files i was getting the horrible sound from the drums that ppl have described as tin foil
     
Jugulator_cro wrote on 10/22/2009 - 08:29 am / quote |
SOADriff wrote:

You people are forgetting that 90% of these kids are just ignorant. I'm 14 myself and i know so many people that listen to songs only because they are 'catchy'. In other words, this study proved that most kids are just plain stupid.


Exactly!
     
theshroomman wrote on 10/22/2009 - 09:02 am / quote |
If youve heard his production work with the smiths and morrissey, you may agree. on cd, its impeccable quality at higher volume levels.
     
 nightraven   m   wrote on 10/22/2009 - 09:45 am / quote |
checkedd
     
Nilpferdkoenig wrote on 10/22/2009 - 10:05 am / quote |
SOADriff wrote:

You people are forgetting that 90% of these kids are just ignorant. I'm 14 myself and i know so many people that listen to songs only because they are 'catchy'. In other words, this study proved that most kids are just plain stupid.


Well this isn't hypocritical at all.
     
Bozjoarmstrong wrote on 10/22/2009 - 11:08 am / quote |
I think we need to be more concerned about the actual crap artists kids listen to...
     
Quicksand15 wrote on 10/22/2009 - 11:27 am / quote |
Muserule1234567 wrote:
wait Bands record on computers there fore making the song an mp3 (most prof recorders) witch is then burned onto cds so realy cds are mp3s

Uhm no, bands do not record mp3s that are burned on CDs and I don't know how you've come to that conclusion!
     
ticklemeemo wrote on 10/23/2009 - 01:37 am / quote |
justinb904 wrote:

it also doesn't help that people use cheap headphones like those white pieces of crap that come with ipods, it honestly makes a world of difference just spending an extra $25 on a good pair of headphones that sound better and last a lot longer than a cheap pair of ear buds that will break or go bad within 6 months


I agree, it is useless to listen to any type of music on crappy headphones/earbuds/speakers. It really doesn't matter what the quality of the song is unless you have good speakers to hear it with.
     
b_flo wrote on 10/23/2009 - 09:37 pm / quote |
You will hear a big difference, if you play it through a line array. I usually play it through our Nexo Geo-T rig w/S2 subs.
     
sbguitarman wrote on 10/23/2009 - 10:29 pm / quote |
kyngofhearts wrote:

but having a file be more compressed or distorted doesn't change the notes they hit, or the notes you hear.
ultimately if you're Recording music at all, that's the mistake. if you're a quality-junkie just stick to live music, since nothing will ever capture quality like actually hearing the music played.
if you need recorded music, suck it up. no method of recording or mixing will make it Flawless to all ears


Looks like this forum needs some knowledge. I work at a store that deals with mobile and home audio/video. I'm actually an installer. I also play guitar and more important im a music fan in general. It’s great that this study was conducted and also sad, but the growing trend of music is to lower the quality standard simply not because low bitrate mp3’s are “good enough”, but because the general public doesn’t care about it. (and the general public represents the majority of people buying so companies could give 2 sh*ts what is sounds like)
Music is recorded in a studio by musicians who practice hours upon hours for minutes of material. Meanwhile being coached and pushed to as close to perfection by a producer. It is mixed the way the artist and producer want the music to be heard. Unfortunately, as I learned at a training that showed a snapshot of a "master" recording, many producers boost the sound to achieve a louder volume on the CD. Music is a vast combination of sine waves (which are supposed to have rounded dips and peaks), but when pushed too far will result in clipping in which the rounded parts get "squared" off diminishing the tonal range of sound. The snapshot literally showed that and its sad that this is being done on purpose.
The producer mentioned in the article clearly does not do this and I would only assume that he makes great sounding records(even though the artists listed are not my taste). That being said, there is a term many people have heard but really do not know the meaning of: HiFi or High Fidelity, which simply means “faithful to the source”. Now obviously the BEST is only as good as the master recording, but assuming the master is brilliant you need excellent equipment to reproduce it (stereo/receiver, amp, speakers, listening ENVIRONMENT) Chances are, what you listen to CD’s on is dirt compared to the studio equipment it was recorded through. Denon makes a cd player over $1000 retail and still produces high end turn tables to this day. Their engineers designed the THX standard with George Lucas’ team. Now your avg listener couldn’t tell the difference between a $10,000 audio setup and a $50,000 one, but believe it or not the difference between your $100 “hifi” stereo and a $1000 setup is HUGE. (1000 bucks is entry level for most of our customers) The point is you need high quality EVERYTHING. Good equipment can reproduce sound with little or no equalization. I see people mention running EQ’s but they don’t really know how to use them. I’ve learned from my boss (a 2 time USAC World Champion, 240SX, Scherer, google it) His car stereo is 2 front speakers and subs, the car is acousticly set up to be almost 100% symmetrical other than driving controls, great equipment which is even outdated now. We use an RTA(real time analyzer) that we can read pink noise with and find what frequencies to adjust. In actuality you want the sound to be “relatively” flat! The more adjusting you have to do to achieve this is getting you further from the intended sound. Another note, when adjusting EQ settings you do NOT raise the gains above 0, you lower the frequencies that are way high and slightly raise ones below the trend. Flat music does sound dull so you only need to make slight adjustments to average the curve. The argument of vinyl vs. cd/digital can be explained if you look up how DAC’s and ADC’s (digital/analog converters) work. Bitrate is a HUGE impact on quality of sound. I do not mean to be rude just to inform. I hope this helps any of you that actually care about the music they hear. Oh and another note, live music is actually the WORST way to hear it only because the environment is not really suitable for it, typically the ticket price can show how well the live sound is produced lol.
I say that only for the sake of the article’s purpose. I for one do enjoy live music as much as or more than recordings, but in all honestly if I could actually hear all the notes it would be that much greater. Please respond with input.
     
jimmysaint wrote on 10/29/2009 - 08:34 pm / quote |
to me.. the c-d's i play in my car seem to have worse sound quality than the mp3 format the radio plays. so.. i dunno. it is what it is
     
BushMasterFlex wrote on 10/30/2009 - 10:56 am / quote |
ive always perfered the sound of a cd.
     
Zeebraa wrote on 11/02/2009 - 08:12 am / quote |
Interesting study... The report could have been proof read though. its "their," not "they're"....
Comment tools:    Post your comment (please login or register and read comments policy first):
biu
   quote
smilies =)
  

About

Help/FAQ

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

RSS Feeds  

Site Map

Link To Us

Tell A Friend

Advertising Info

Job Opportunities

Contact Us

Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2012