High fidelity takes backseat to portability

[JSngry]

Once a file has been compressed, there is nothing you can to do to retrieve that information. Convert it to a wav, or flac, or any other lossless codec and it will sound exactly the same. Sorry Jim, but it only sounded better because you wanted it to sound better.

Then I must have supernatural powers of wish-fulfillment, because the difference between the lower & higher bitrate files is real...

As I tried to say above (but evidently wasn't as clear as I should have been), this is NOT a matter of "retrieving information" - that is impossible. HOWEVER, you can run an algorithm designed to make a compressed file sound better to a human ear. It doesn't necessarily sound the same as the original lossless file (except for by extraordinary conincidence), but it can sound less harsh and more full.

And that is what happened.

[couw]

Once a file has been compressed, there is nothing you can to do to retrieve that information. Convert it to a wav, or flac, or any other lossless codec and it will sound exactly the same. Sorry Jim, but it only sounded better because you wanted it to sound better.

Then I must have supernatural powers of wish-fulfillment, because the difference between the lower & higher bitrate files is real...

As I tried to say above (but evidently wasn't as clear as I should have been), this is NOT a matter of "retrieving information" - that is impossible. HOWEVER, you can run an algorithm designed to make a compressed file sound better to a human ear. It doesn't necessarily sound the same as the original lossless file (except for by extraordinary conincidence), but it can sound less harsh and more full.

And that is what happened.

that's nice, but if you didn't tell the programme to run any algorithm, it sucks too. You would expect mp3 de-/encoding to stay as close to the source file as possibl. Whether it sound like crap or a golden glockenspiel should not be the business of a de-/encoder to decide, but your own. Which mp3 encoder does your Goldwave use?

[JSngry]

Hell if I know.

And I've tried it on another lo-res file (from a different source) w/no improvement.

Who knows what all's going on in the 0s & 1s?

Edited April 24, 2007 by JSngry

[jazzbo]

I would add another factor in the discussion.

Assuming that you can transfert a cd on a portable device Ipod or an hard disc, ecc. at the same resolution of the native source, and hook the portable device/hard disk to a normal stereo, in order to play it you still need a D/A converter. The quality of the converter will have some influence in the sound's quality. Nobody here are saying that a portable Discman or the internal D/A converter of the iPod sounds exactly the same that a decent cd player, or am I wrong?

You are correct - the D/A converter is obviously a huge part of the puzzle. Is there a way to bypass the internal D/A converter in an iPod? I honestly don't know. For that matter, I don't even know the specs on the iPod's internal converter - I would expect that they aren't very good. FWIW, I have a friend who has 24bit converters on his computers and he says that he gets excellent sound quality playing lossless files from harddisc (he does production and mastering).

There is a way to bypss the DACs in the iPod as Monitor Audio makes an "iDeck" which does just this, and I have seen an expensive "mod"to the iPod that also accomplishes this.

[porcy62]

So, in order to put a lossless audio file to an hard disk, including iPod, and to play it you need at least decent A/D/A converters, possibly a 24bit. Obviously the better converters are the better fidelity you get at the end of the process.

[porcy62]

Once a file has been compressed, there is nothing you can to do to retrieve that information. Convert it to a wav, or flac, or any other lossless codec and it will sound exactly the same. Sorry Jim, but it only sounded better because you wanted it to sound better.

Then I must have supernatural powers of wish-fulfillment, because the difference between the lower & higher bitrate files is real...

As I tried to say above (but evidently wasn't as clear as I should have been), this is NOT a matter of "retrieving information" - that is impossible. HOWEVER, you can run an algorithm designed to make a compressed file sound better to a human ear. It doesn't necessarily sound the same as the original lossless file (except for by extraordinary conincidence), but it can sound less harsh and more full.

The very same of what happens with clipping, you can design an amp with a soft, or more agreable, clipping, or what happens with distorsion, usually tube amps have a distortion that is less harsh then solid state amps, but you have clipping and distortion anyway in the measurements.

[J Larsen]

I think that essentially what I said in my original post.

[jazzbo]

Okay, I had some money left over from my tax return and I decided to buy something I had been wanting to buy for some time: a Monitor "I-Deck" (the first version).

I found this for 150 bucks and I have to say: if you are looking for an office or bedroom iPod system, this is da shitte. Sounds really good at low volumes (a must for me) and will get LOUD! 18 digital watts of power, efficient speakers.

Heavy power supply, sound is clear and deep and full. Remote to use. You can also plug in another audio sorce via 1/4" phone jack. You can also connect to iTunes via firewire or USB, works like a charm for updating the iPod while it's docked.

So glad I got this before they disappeared.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jazzbo

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

u guys have all turned into a bunch of 14 year old girls! ipods?!? i'm on organissmio, right? let me check? yep--- let me bring u all back to organissmo reality: portability is a leather strap handle your wire recorder unit. there- thats better.

ps: whens chewys tax return comming? show me 'da money!

[jazzbo]

Mirror mirror on the wall? Who's the most fourteenyearoldgirl of us all?

[Stefan Wood]

Lon, I did almost the same with my tax return money. Except I went and got this:

Sounds exactly like the Bose system, except for less than 1/2 the cost. Loving it so far - there is punch to the bass, and the highs are clear. Can get freakin load as well.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Stefan Wood

[jazzbo]

Lon, I did almost the same with my tax return money. Except I went and got this:

Sonds exactly like the Bose system, except for less than 1/2 the cost. Loving it so far - there is punch to the bass, and the highs are clear. Can get freakin load as well.

Cool. I like to have the detached/separated speakers, I put one on each end of my desk and it's more like a home stereo to me.

I think the Monitor I have trounces the Bose system. I've heard that aplenty in a friend's office.

Clem, if you packed a lunch and went to an office every day (maybe you do, maybe you don't) the iPod and a system to support it is a wondrous thing. It's not surrendering to consumerism, it's taking advantage of a great technology for music lovers.* You can take hours and hours of music with you and have a great experience working with your music, filtering out the aural world of gossip and brownnosization and getting a blanket of comfort to use as a backdrop for your work. I'm lucky, I can do this, it goes a long way to making my commute and my work hours bearable.I finally have an office to make this worthwhile, I have a blownup page of Lester Young demonstrating how to create his distinctive porkpie in front of my desk to look at, a Japanese RVG poster to my right, a Bechet Savoy EP on the wall to my left (all gifts from board members!), it's a haven in a hostile zone.

And honestly, it's decent sound, whether you believe that or not.

*You just sound like an old fart with their head stuck in . . . the sand . . . when you rail against it.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jazzbo

[J Larsen]

Clem, if you packed a lunch and went to an office every day (maybe you do, maybe you don't) the iPod and a system to support it is a wondrous thing. It's not surrendering to consumerism, it's taking advantage of a great technology for music lovers.* You can take hours and hours of music with you and have a great experience working with your music, filtering out the aural world of gossip and brownnosization and getting a blanket of comfort to use as a backdrop for your work.

I have to agree with this. I never listen to it at home because of sound quality issues, but if I'm paying close enough attention at the office to care that it sounds like a second generation tape, then I'm not doing my job very well. Besides, it's not like listening to cds through the computer speakers at work sounds any better than the iPod, and lugging the discs back and forth is a pain.

[jazzbo]

1} The irony of Chewy ragging on anyone's enthusiasm doesn't escape. Believe me there's a lot to be excited about being able to carry hundreds of hours of music in your pocket and play back music when and where you want it in surprisingly good sound. To titter about it just makes someone seem out of touch.

2} It's not an either or situation. "Music in Bulk" still has a pride of place. . . I don't see that not being the case here.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jazzbo

[J Larsen]

i do want to reiterate the MUSIC IN BULK thing has as many practical problems as benefits... beware! (& enjoy.)

I agree with that - in ways I miss the times when you had to run around town in search of the 7" you were looking for, you couldn't log on to a website that would tell you what 100 records you should be listening to, and when you got a record you LIVED with it. Now everything comes out so fast, is so easy to download, and is so quickly identified on the web as a good/cool/square/crappy record, and so much of it can be carried around in your pocket that I really feel like contemporary listening standards have fallen, and the connection to the music isn't the same as it used to be.

But I'm still keeping an ipod at work.

[md655321]

bypasses the iPod's DACs to use their own, sound is clear and deep and full.

I tried looking for the specs on this but couldnt find it. Even so, I am almost 100% certain that this isnt true. The home dock/stereo things use the lineout of the ipod, but there has already been the digital to analog conversion, just no amplification of it. Not that it really matters, im sure it still sounds nice.

I plan on getting one eventually. For now I just hook up the ipod directly to the computer speakers I have set up in the living room, those arent too portable though.

[jazzbo]

I don't know the ins and outs of the DAC thing, I'm just saying what they say. It sounds . . . so good I could believe it's true.

[J Larsen]

The question is whether there is a digital output on the iPod. I don't know the answer, but if there is one it obviously has to be via the UBS slot on the bottom.

[paul secor]

Folks can do what they want, and they will.

I'd just like to quote a passage from Joe Boyd's White Bicycles where he writes about some differences between the music listening scene in the late 50's/mid 60's and today:

"History today seems more like a postmodern collage; we are surrounded by two-dimensional representations of our heritage. Access via amazon.com or iPod to all those boxed sets of blues singers - or Nick Drake, for that matter - doesn't equate with the sense of discovery and connection we experienced. The very existence of such a wealth of information creates an overload that can drown ou vivid moments of revelation."

Old fogeyism? Perhaps - but there's a lot of truth there.

[jazzbo]

I've done some looking around and it appears that this bit about the DACs is incorrect, or perhaps better said incorrect, and seems to be coming from a review and retail advertisement copy but not from the manufacturer. I've removed that from my post above. THANKS.

Here's a note from the manufacturer/distributor:

Pickering, ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 11,

2005 – Monitor Audio, the UK’s leading specialty loudspeaker manufacturer, today released a

statement correcting the details relating to its i-deck’s digital amplifier input. The i-deck personal stereo companion for iPods, does not, in fact, take a digital signal from the iPod; instead it uses the analog signal and then via high quality ADC’s and DAC’s it performs the amplification digitally.

“We are deeply disappointed by what appears to have been an isolated series of disconnects

between our engineers and the manufacturer,” said Simon Spears, vice president of operations for Monitor Audio USA. “That notwithstanding, the i-deck bears the pedigree of the Monitor Audio brand and the thirty years of innovative design that support it. We are extremely confident that consumers who try the product will feel and hear the difference for themselves.”

SO. . .it's true that the Monitor iDeck takes its signal from the analog output (possibly before the headphone amp section) and then converts it using ADCs and then amplifies the signal digitally. . . nice digital amplifier on this unit. Sound is great.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jazzbo

[porcy62]

Folks can do what they want, and they will.

I'd just like to quote a passage from Joe Boyd's White Bicycles where he writes about some differences between the music listening scene in the late 50's/mid 60's and today:

"History today seems more like a postmodern collage; we are surrounded by two-dimensional representations of our heritage. Access via amazon.com or iPod to all those boxed sets of blues singers - or Nick Drake, for that matter - doesn't equate with the sense of discovery and connection we experienced. The very existence of such a wealth of information creates an overload that can drown ou vivid moments of revelation."

Old fogeyism? Perhaps - but there's a lot of truth there.

Fundamentally agree. I have a teenager son, and obviously I closely observe his habits with music. He basically 'consume' everything in a couple of week. After a mounth I could ask about what he listened and he barely remember the name of the band/musicians. For him is a sort of background of his existence. If I ask him wich instruments were in the tracks or wich musicians was in the band: no answears. Am I a naive nostalgic of my youth? Maybe. Am I complaining about the today's mass market? Yes. I have records that I could still sing, out of tune, note by note, chord by chord from the first track to the last one after twenty five years.

Said that, I am happy that you folks can listen to music while working, jogging, driving, commuting.

Personally I am a one thing man: I can't walk and chew a chewing gum at the same time. If I work, I work, if I drive my motorbike, I drive, if I write I write, if I run, I run and if I listen to music I listen to music. Good music affects me so strong that I can't do anything's else at the same time. It absorb me totally.

Probably I have a shortage of neurons. My son dowlonds music, listening music, chats with friends and does the school research at the same time. Multitasking youth, a little envy of a monotasking middle age father or a lack of deeping in things in my son? Hard answear. Too early for it. We will see when they will get our age..

Edited April 29, 2007 by porcy62

[alocispepraluger102]

Folks can do what they want, and they will.

I'd just like to quote a passage from Joe Boyd's White Bicycles where he writes about some differences between the music listening scene in the late 50's/mid 60's and today:

"History today seems more like a postmodern collage; we are surrounded by two-dimensional representations of our heritage. Access via amazon.com or iPod to all those boxed sets of blues singers - or Nick Drake, for that matter - doesn't equate with the sense of discovery and connection we experienced. The very existence of such a wealth of information creates an overload that can drown ou vivid moments of revelation."

Old fogeyism? Perhaps - but there's a lot of truth there.

lots of truth. there is just something wrong with putting an artist's lifetime of creation on just a few discs(whatever the quality) or in one file. it diminishes the work and the artist in a way that i can not describe.

[md655321]

It still depends on the person and on the use. Ipod have certainly made it easier for music to be turned into a throwaway commodity, to be consumed and quickly forgotten, like a fast food cheeseburger. But that certainly doesnt mean it is more or less common today than it was in 1965, or 75, or 85.

When your were young, you likely surrounded yourself with intense music fans. As the real world kept going, you came into contact with more 'average' music fans, whether it is your co-worker, next door neighbor, or even your son. This may give you the impression that music has become less important to the current generation, I would be careful about making such an accusation.

I am 25 years old, and 100% of my listening is done on an ipod. I want to have 7500 songs with me at all times (although at very high quality mp3, double what itunes sells its files at.) For me, technology had made me MORE of a music fan. I am able to listen to a much more wide variety of stuff, and to learn about a much more wide variety. Now, it has no doubt meant that I have listened less to specific CDs than i did before ipods and the internet. But stuff that truly moves still gets many many repeated listening. And I know it is true of many of my generation.

Technology, for many, including musicians, has been much better for the love of music.

[GA Russell]

...the sense of discovery and connection we experienced. The very existence of such a wealth of information creates an overload that can drown ou vivid moments of revelation."

I remember well those senses of discovery and revelation when I was in college and getting into jazz by buying $1.99 cutouts of Riversides and Prestiges; and later when I was getting into Canterbury prog rock which were only available as import LPs.

But in both cases there were two factors: The music was new to me, and there was a shortage of what was available in the record stores.

Nowadays, I'm not aware of any new music trends that excite me. And the ability to easily purchase all of an artist's catalogue currently in print is a definite improvement to me.

Plus, even though I am on a strict budget, I have more money to spend on music now (especially with Your Music!) than I had when I was a student; so each individual album is not going to be as precious as it was then.

And also, I'm more than thirty years older than I was in those days; and maybe with time the thrill of the hunt wears off. But I think that it would return if I discovered a new type of music which excited me.

[rostasi]

I love diversity and thrive on doing multiple things at once.

I get my most creative ideas that way.

I think that if someone young can't remember particular groups

or songs they were listening to a month ago, it tells me more about

the quality of the music and possibly too about how important

(or not) music is to some folks. Music as a hip commodity?

It's been that way for ages. If something is strikingly good

enough, it'll resonate and one can just repeat it over and over...

If that's what it takes to memorize a lyric or an instrumental goody,

then it's not fundamentally different than thirty years ago,

except that one had to listen to something repeatedly

because one could only afford just so many LPs.

I'll take quantity - huge quantity - and let my mind

jump into high gear when the sound becomes heavenly.