Your perfect 6CD stack

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think of it like digital movies. Is a digital picture as analog or continuous as film?

Technically, film isn't analog or continuous either. It's a 24 frame per second sampling. It's just not digitally stored or compressed.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Technically, film isn't analog or continuous either. It's a 24 frame per second sampling. It's just not digitally stored or compressed.

Film, as in a photograph, which is continuous (as it relates to anything meaningful and relevant to this conversation) and is analog. Nothing is continuous in capturing images over time; ie, everything is going to have a fps, so I figured it was obvious what I was referring to when I was talking about projection. Sorry for the confusion.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Film, as in a photograph, which is continuous (as it relates to anything meaningful and relevant to this conversation) and is analog. Nothing is continuous in capturing images over time; ie, everything is going to have a fps, so I figured it was obvious what I was referring to when I was talking about projection. Sorry for the confusion.

No I get it, I just meant that because film isn't continuous there are details missing, just like digitally recorded audio. I suppose its a minor point.

I find it interesting that most are perfectly happy with 24fps for movies but would complain to no end if their video game came in at that rate where 60fps is deemed more "acceptable".

Human eyesight, at least from what I've read, can be the equivalent of as much as 1000fps (and I realize we don't see in "frames") so it's amazing these lower rates appear acceptable to most folks. I have an issue with many of the heavy special effect movies (like the Marvel series for example) because fast action scenes are choppy to me. It's also why 3D movies annoy me, besides the fact the glasses are typically too small for my face (the pupillary distance is too narrow).

This is an interesting video that covers some of this and explains why "motion blur" is so important. There's a test in this where I see the individual colors instead of the merged colors that was expected.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

For convenience, digit streaming is the best, but boomers complained about cassettes and CDs compared to their vinyl, and Millennials have complained about compressed mp3s and streaming music compared to their higher bitrate CDs, but now we are starting to see lossless and master studio edition streaming, so hopefully people holding onto those CDs will finally be able to ditch them. Until then, I'm sure people will still use CDs.

Now I have to go and find my CDs and compare to Spotify back to back. I haven't listened to a store bought CD in so long. Before I went to streaming it was all downloaded mixes so quality was always going to vary.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Both Spotify and Apple Music stream CD quality content now. For Spotify you must download to your device to get the highest quality. Not all mp3s are the same. Codecs and bit rates matter. FWIW, Apple’s content was always AAC, not MP3.



Opinion incoming, you might disagree: Anyone who claims they can hear the difference on an OEM car stereo* is a ‘but muh cd quality’ blowhard.

*my previous statement was poorly qualified, see below.

[Vracer111]

Yall don't rip your CD collection to FLAC files and mainly keep the CD for archive/backup?

But even though I have my entire collection ripped to FLAC and available on every device I have, I still listen to CD albums from time to time, especially the first time through...



I do try to get the CD if possible, but with Bandcamp you are able to get artist releases via FLAC and have the downloads available through your collection if something happens to the album/tracks you downloaded.

Half my collection is physical CD's the other half FLAC downloads from Bandcamp...the streaming quality is pretty good too:

https://maryspender.bandcamp.com/track/i-am-not-yours-2

https://protodome.bandcamp.com/track/moonbound-snes

https://luckychops.bandcamp.com/track/these-tears

https://radicaldreamland.bandcamp.co...of-the-unknown

[finch1750]

I'm trying to avoid the audiophile rabbit hole for the last couple years.

I knew streaming sounded better than radio and that I liked base, but once I got the OEM+ Audio in the FRS and then I drive other cars it just hurts. And I know that is not even a top quality set-up just a pretty good one. I wouldn't even begin to know where to download stuff anymore outside Google Music or even the file format differences.

[soundman98]

I've given up on the buy-cd's-rip-to-flac method. Too many artists are abandoning selling music outside of digital services. So i just end up getting it from youtube converters, sometimes off amazon music because they allow me to download the track to 'own' it.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by soundman98

I've given up on the buy-cd's-rip-to-flac method. Too many artists are abandoning selling music outside of digital services. So i just end up getting it from youtube converters, sometimes off amazon music because they allow me to download the track to 'own' it.

Is youtube conversion generally good quality?

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by finch1750

Is youtube conversion generally good quality?

it's 'meh'. with a little self-dosing of tinnitus and age, i'm dropping most of the need for anything above 15khz, so i notice less.

it's about on par with a 320kb/s ripped track.

tweeters that are generally labeled as 'harsh', or 'transparent' are going to reveal the compression, but i personally am at the point where i just care less--in some ways due to the fact that i can no longer afford to drop $200/month on updating my track lists with the real cd's.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Opinion incoming, you might disagree: Anyone who claims they can hear the difference on a setup that cost less than 5 grand in a room that’s properly set up is a ‘but muh cd quality’ blowhard.

that's got so many asterisk's, you're going to need both sides of the letterhead!

compression is always most noticeable in the high end. it happens on the low end as well but the high end 'breadth' is where it is most noticeable because the track looses out on some of the spacial data we use to understand where instruments are within the recording 'room'(because it's not always a physical space).

because of that, many setups under $5k can easily show compression artifacts, based specifically on the tweeter selected. hard or revealing tweeters do this easily, even in the $20-40 (for individual components) category.

i was noticed this last night while playing some internet stations on my free-to-me 12" KLH 3-ways (something like $250-300 retail), powered with a random 15 year-old sony a/v receiver ($300-400 retail) off a bluetooth connection. their hard mylar domes showed off a lot of compression artifacts in the source material and transmit method.

i'm really not in love with those speakers (too harsh on the top end, too boomy and unrealistic on the low end), i mostly just keep them as a reminder of a misspent youth playing with a similar set in a best buy demo, cranking whatever jay z song was locked into the demo mode until the manager would come over and shoo me away...

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by soundman98

that's got so many asterisk's, you're going to need both sides of the letterhead!

compression is always most noticeable in the high end. it happens on the low end as well but the high end 'breadth' is where it is most noticeable because the track looses out on some of the spacial data we use to understand where instruments are within the recording 'room'(because it's not always a physical space).

because of that, many setups under $5k can easily show compression artifacts, based specifically on the tweeter selected. hard or revealing tweeters do this easily, even in the $20-40 (for individual components) category.

i was noticed this last night while playing some internet stations on my free-to-me 12" KLH 3-ways (something like $250-300 retail), powered with a random 15 year-old sony a/v receiver ($300-400 retail) off a bluetooth connection. their hard mylar domes showed off a lot of compression artifacts in the source material and transmit method.

i'm really not in love with those speakers (too harsh on the top end, too boomy and unrealistic on the low end), i mostly just keep them as a reminder of a misspent youth playing with a similar set in a best buy demo, cranking whatever jay z song was locked into the demo mode until the manager would come over and shoo me away...

Ehhh, you’re right I shouldn’t have put a $ amount on it. My HT setup is pretty modest (got a screaming deal on a set of Klipsch reference 62’s and set them up with a $400 amp), and I CAN hear the difference in the high end. That said the difference is nowhere near significant enough for me to care while leisurely listening to music. Now if I queue up a 128kBps MP3 from Kazaa in 2003 it sounds irritating. But a 256kBps AAC file from Apple Music? That sounds great.

[JD001]

We have a CD player???

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Ehhh, you’re right I shouldn’t have put a $ amount on it. My HT setup is pretty modest (got a screaming deal on a set of Klipsch reference 62’s and set them up with a $400 amp), and I CAN hear the difference in the high end. That said the difference is nowhere near significant enough for me to care while leisurely listening to music. Now if I queue up a 128kBps MP3 from Kazaa in 2003 it sounds irritating. But a 256kBps AAC file from Apple Music? That sounds great.

klipsch's especially with their horn-loaded hard domes show everything!