Audio Video Revolution Forum  

Go Back   Audio Video Revolution Forum > Welcome to AVRev.com's Forum > Discuss AVRev.com News

Discuss AVRev.com News Post your opinions on the latest news from the pages of AVRev.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-14-2007   #13
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2
Default Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

I voice my opinion in that I think the article was well written, and that this was not intended to be a white paper, simply a blurb of an interesting topic. I enjoyed it, as well as many other articles on this site... I'm glad it exists, as well as most others here, if you're not happy, don't let the door hit you in the *** on your way out.

I agree that the sound quality is sub-par on most < 256 kbps files, as do several people whom I have spoke with about this very same topic. Most of which are not-audiophiles. I refuse to purchase any downloads for this reason... hardware included. If I were a hard core jogger, spent less time outside the house, or if portability was a dire necessity, this might be a different story.

I think it's safe to say that most of the general population listening to their iPod’s, etc. are more passive listeners, than say someone sitting down in their dedicated listening room queuing up their Meridian... hence Jerry’s comparison of the Toyota vs. Ferrari.

The blinders are on the general public's eyes, yet they don't seem to mind. Whatever happened to the selling points and marketing slogans that got this technology got off the ground? I recall verbiage of “digital coding that reproduces the exact sound”.

The studios certainly have the ability to provide customers with a quality product (format), yet they don’t. In fact when you think about how much savings is achieved when all they are doing is pushing a file to an e-distributor??? Figure what is costs to stamp out a million+ cd’s, print the inserts, ship to the warehouses, etc. You would think that they would offer us something more not something less.
tame_junglecat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007   #14
Super Member
 
Robinson_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 395
Default Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo View Post
I have two Comments:

I think Jerry C's way of bringing you to the forum to get the "full Story" is a bit of a hoax just to get his site to grow.

Clearly, AVRev.com wants readers, a lot of them. However, to call our linking the story from our main site to AVRevforum.com a hoax is a bit much. We do this in order to give users, (like yourself), a place to make comments (like you did) immediately after you read a news story which many users like to do (like yourself).

Before the advent of the AVRevforum readers would simply read stories then either write Jerry or myself e-mails wanting to discuss or have to post their thoughts about our content elsewhere. Hence why we created the forum.

Our readers are as good as they get and this forum and topics such have these have only showcased that fact. But unlike other audio sites, blogs, or forums we do not judge here and we say the more the merrier.
__________________
Andrew Robinson

Managing Editor
www.avrev.com
www.avrevforum.com
www.modernhometheater.com
www.aprilshowersmovie.com
Robinson_A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007   #15
Super Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: White Plains, New York
Posts: 1,706
Thumbs up Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

Well said Andrew.
deacongreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007   #16
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2
Default Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

I like to think of myself as an audiophile, but I am also the type to cram as much stuff on my I-pod as I can. I usually have the CD for serious listening on my 2-channel system, but I have as much of it on my I-pod and my PC as will fit because I never know what mood I am going to be in. I encode them as 192-MP3s which is fine for the way I listen to my I-pod which is background music, in the car, or at the office. So there is room for both sides of the coin.

By the way, does anyone know of any studies on who is buying the majority of music, and how are they listening to it?
wmac500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007   #17
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1
Default Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVRevForum.com View Post
The sad commentary here is that the four major record labels are unwilling to market their content at any level of real high definition. Simply put, one-fourth the resolution of a 25-year-old compact disc (256 kbps) format is not “high-resolution” anything, despite what Apple says. The majors fought over the differences between SACD and DVD-Audio, leaving discerning consumers feeling ambivalent about investing in either format because of a lack of titles, complications in system set-up, a lack of video content and overall cost. Yet video games costing $60 to $90 per title sell in volumes that are five times higher than today’s best-selling CDs. High-definition movies on HD DVD and Blu-ray sell in increasingly strong volumes, while over 3,000,000 HDTV sets are sold per month in the United States. The ship has likely sailed for SACD and DVD-Audio, but both the new HD DVD and Blu-ray formats allow huge storage capacity for an audio and video experience that can expand the “album” concept far beyond one or two low-resolution files. But the major labels, as their sales spiral down the toilet bowl, simply fail to release their music in any compelling format that improves on the value proposition or audio quality, thus turning to very low-resolution downloads because they represent the lowest-hanging fruit for a business that simply cannot market its way out of a paper bag. The art of emotionally charged high-resolution music has been left to smaller players, but if you want to hear what the potential of a real download sounds like, listen to the Super HD downloads from Music Giants. There is no comparison between the power of what they are doing and a mere 256 kbps file.

by: Jerry Del Colliano
I would have to agree completely with Jerry's commentary related to quality of the audio. With that said, I believe the recording industry has a significant challenge far greater than the quality of the music. Unfortunately because of iTunes and the like their products have been commotitized. Where their average retail sell price was $9 to $14 per album. It has now been reduced to $0.89 per song and hopefully up to $3 or $4 per album. People will only buy the songs they like off the album. There is no doubt the internet has started leveling out the playing field for the independant artist as well. Get a strong following on my space and facebook and the like and then the artist has to decide do they need a lable any more. If the artist hires a good marketing firm it can be just as effective without loosing the rights to their work.

Now, It would be interesting if the record companies took a similar approach to the movie industry. What if the the songs were like movie trailers to a much bigger event? What about a theater release of a concern? The followed by a an HD-DVD/Bluray, which included all the songs in HD (SACD/DVD-Audio) quality music, music video's for each of the songs and the theatrical live event, naration by the artist? Make it possible to burn the HD audio songs to your Ipod and or the videos using a managed copy feature. Offer a video rental option with the managed copy functions disabled.

Your next music lable could end up being Disney, Dreamworks or the likes.

Thoughts?
bigdwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007   #18
Super Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 272
Default Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F

I'll read this great thread later when I have more time,

but just wanted to chime in quickly that not only can I hear a difference between 128 and 256 kbps, I can hear improvement with 320 and with lossless on top of that. The difference, even between 320 and lossless is obvious to me *driving in the car through the car speakers*. I can't tolerate any lossy compression on my music any longer... I do everything lossless for car and jogging now that I've heard the improvement on both the car stereo and headphones.
DaViD Boulet is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Tags
256, 320, audiophile, bright, cd, definition, differenc, difference, ear, ebetween, formats, hear, human, kbps, mp3

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fox Announces "Romancing the Stone" and "Jewel of the Nile" Blu-ray Releases tigeraudio2007 Blu-ray Software 1 07-09-2008 04:37 PM
Canton Adds Two New Home Theater Systems to the "Movie" Lineup AVRevForum.com Loudspeakers 0 03-13-2008 10:22 AM
Sony VPL VW50 "Pearl" 1080p Projector Review AVRevForum.com Video Projectors 25 02-22-2008 01:59 PM
Outlaw Audio Special "Sonic Boom" Offer AVRevForum.com Subwoofers 0 12-03-2007 04:32 PM
Eagles "Long Road Out Of Eden" To Be Released October 30th AVRevForum.com The Best in New Music 2 08-31-2007 11:55 AM




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1