Source makes a huge difference

[Beechnut]

My ears just bore witness to how much your source makes a difference. Something I'm sure 90% of you have experienced several times over. Had the TV set to music video's...Song I've really enjoyed lately came on ("Barefoot Blue Jean Night" by Jake Owen) and I noticed it was lacking. Banjo wasn't rolling nearly as crisp, base line didn't dig as deap, struming wasn't as full. He hasn't released the album yet but I had already downloaded the MP3. So, popped it in and the song opened up soooooo much! First time my ears have heard such an exponetial difference in the same song.

Right now, was running it on my Onkyo TX-NR3008 and RF7ii's.

Been converting CD's to FLAC and running those through the DAC's in the Onkyo and those do open up more than the MP3's. Just wasn't as pronounced as going from Cable TV to MP3.

Really enjoying this hobby.

[Mallette]

My ears just bore witness to how much your source makes a difference. Something I'm sure 90% of you have experienced several times over. Had the TV set to music video's...Song I've really enjoyed lately came on ("Barefoot Blue Jean Night" by Jake Owen) and I noticed it was lacking. Banjo wasn't rolling nearly as crisp, base line didn't dig as deap, struming wasn't as full. He hasn't released the album yet but I had already downloaded the MP3. So, popped it in and the song opened up soooooo much! First time my ears have heard such an exponetial difference in the same song.

Right now, was running it on my Onkyo TX-NR3008 and RF7ii's.

Been converting CD's to FLAC and running those through the DAC's in the Onkyo and those do open up more than the MP3's. Just wasn't as pronounced as going from Cable TV to MP3.

Really enjoying this hobby.

In my case, I'd rather listen to chalk scraping on a blackboard (anybody left that knows what that REALLY means?) than an mp3. OTOH, an mp3 made from truly first class source material is superior to the finest 180 gram LP or SACD or 24/192 recording made by an idiot.

My experience here is that perhaps 40 of the 40,000 or whatever registered here understand that it is ALL about the source. Great source material sounds comes through on anything, crappy source material gets worse the better your system is.

Dave

[dtel]

I have not been able to find anything from Sat or cable Tv that has any quality sound, a local radio station sounds better. They advertise CD quality sound but it's far from it.....even some Cd's sound bad. There are no standards apparently, even with recording volume, put a few Cd's in a 5 cd player and listen to volumes change.

When you hear a good recording it will jump out at you, then make you realize how bad the rest are. [:@]

[Fish]

. Great source material sounds comes through on anything, crappy source material gets worse the better your system is.

That is a statement I can support 100%.

[Beechnut]

I was really excited to get to experience the difference. I've never had anyone in my life that had high end systems or a collection of SACDs or vinyl. Exploring this hobby is all new to me. Need to make the pilgrimage []

[Ironsave]

I had this happen a few weeks ago.

I accidentally clicked on the wrong folder and opened a 192kbs mp3 instead of the 320kbs......

There was a pronounced difference after I realized and switched to the (correct 320kbs) file.

I know FLAC sounds even better; but the 320 kbs line is the one I draw in the sand......

(Anything under I usually do not bother having; anything over sounds at least pretty good).

[Schu]

I was A-B'ing sacd and cd versions of the same songs this past weekend... while the difference is not night and day... the difference is substantial to be sure. SACD is so much more defined and separated at the same time having more presence.

[Invidiosulus]

I have not been able to find anything from Sat or cable Tv that has any quality sound, a local radio station sounds better. They advertise CD quality sound but it's far from it.....even some Cd's sound bad. There are no standards apparently, even with recording volume, put a few Cd's in a 5 cd player and listen to volumes change.

When you hear a good recording it will jump out at you, then make you realize how bad the rest are.

And why would you want them to all be the same volume, sounds like the over compressed pop radio stations to me.

[MikeFord]

I was A-B'ing sacd and cd versions of the same songs this past weekend... while the difference is not night and day... the difference is substantial to be sure. SACD is so much more defined and separated at the same time having more presence.

Are some from different mixes or with different mastering and EQ?

Plenty of digital compression stinks. Plenty of digital period stinks. That said, I'm not convinced that anybody can actually hear any differences with a good encoder and 192k and above bit rates.

[Mallette]

I was A-B'ing sacd and cd versions of the same songs this past weekend... while the difference is not night and day... the difference is substantial to be sure. SACD is so much more defined and separated at the same time having more presence.

There is no reason of any kind for compression. Just say "no."

Dave

PS - Sorry, Schu. I intended to quote the guy who drew the line at 320kbps mp3's. Obviously not you...

[T.H.E. Droid]

I remember a conversation I havd a few years ago with my nephew, who was a die hard mp3/ipod fanatic. His whole collection was on an Ipod and he listened on headphones and hooked up to his little stereo.

I remember relating to him how bad mp3's sound to me and of course, being a young pup talking to an old f a r t, he disagreed. I challenged him to actually buy a CD of his favorite album and we racked it up on my Cornwalls. I can honestly say that I wanted to listen to it with my hands over my ears (it wasn't my brand of music for sure) but he was mesmerized. I helped him pick out a basic system with some decent small Klipsch speakers and he is very, very happy. He still loves the mp3's for their convenience, but was able to really experience the music on a better system.

As they say, GIGO.

[dtel]

I have not been able to find anything from Sat or cable Tv that has any quality sound, a local radio station sounds better. They advertise CD quality sound but it's far from it.....even some Cd's sound bad. There are no standards apparently, even with recording volume, put a few Cd's in a 5 cd player and listen to volumes change.

When you hear a good recording it will jump out at you, then make you realize how bad the rest are.

And why would you want them to all be the same volume, sounds like the over compressed pop radio stations to me.

They can be all the same volume without being compressed, the volume could be much closer at least. A slow James Taylor song should not play louder than AC/DC, I wouldn't think ?

Recording something louder is also very popular and no better than compression, combined it really stinks.

They have the equipment but no set standards as a minimum standard for quality, and this is for every format from LP's to the latest.

I guess they don't care that everyone is not listening on a $20 set of headphones or stock car radio where you would probably not hear much difference.

[pite]

My ears just bore witness to how much your source makes a difference. Something I'm sure 90% of you have experienced several times over. Had the TV set to music video's...Song I've really enjoyed lately came on ("Barefoot Blue Jean Night" by Jake Owen) and I noticed it was lacking. Banjo wasn't rolling nearly as crisp, base line didn't dig as deap, struming wasn't as full. He hasn't released the album yet but I had already downloaded the MP3. So, popped it in and the song opened up soooooo much! First time my ears have heard such an exponetial difference in the same song.

Right now, was running it on my Onkyo TX-NR3008 and RF7ii's.

Been converting CD's to FLAC and running those through the DAC's in the Onkyo and those do open up more than the MP3's. Just wasn't as pronounced as going from Cable TV to MP3.

Really enjoying this hobby.

In my case, I'd rather listen to chalk scraping on a blackboard (anybody left that knows what that REALLY means?) than an mp3. OTOH, an mp3 made from truly first class source material is superior to the finest 180 gram LP or SACD or 24/192 recording made by an idiot.

My experience here is that perhaps 40 of the 40,000 or whatever registered here understand that it is ALL about the source. Great source material sounds comes through on anything, crappy source material gets worse the better your system is.

Dave

[Y]

[Ironsave]

There is no reason of any kind for compression. Just say "no."

Dave

PS - Sorry, Schu. I intended to quote the guy who drew the line at 320kbps mp3's. Obviously not you...

The reason is much of the music I listen to is difficult to get, if not nearly impossible.

So again, when I copy music from a CD to my drive; it is FLAC. If it is something I have had on casette; I am at the mercy of what I can find.

Sorry dude, I completely disagree with your statement.

[Mallette]

Sorry dude, I completely disagree with your statement.

See my signature line.

If you don't mind, it don't matter.

However, listening to a quality recording of something critical...say a solo Strad...makes the sonic degradation of any compression scheme that in any way throws out audio information painfully obvious.

OTOH, you are unlikely to notice if listening to Kraftwerke.

Dave

[Ironsave]

Sorry dude, I completely disagree with your statement.

See my signature line.

If you don't mind, it don't matter.

However, listening to a quality recording of something critical...say a solo Strad...makes the sonic degradation of any compression scheme that in any way throws out audio information painfully obvious.

OTOH, you are unlikely to notice if listening to Kraftwerke.

Dave

While it may be true that much of modern metal music is already being compressed as it is recorded; that does not make it an inferior style of music.

There are so many artists that have done so much for this genre.... #1 on my list? The recently departed Ronnie James Dio......

OTOH....

I listen to everything from Fleetwood Mac, to the Stones, to Kreator and Slayer, as well as Eminem and Dr. Dre to Kanye and House Music. I have the Max Raabe Orchestra and even older music such as Johnny Cash and Johnny Horton.

There are so many types and styles of music that are great; I listen to much more than just metal.

I can pull up the same song from Fleetwood Mac @ 320KBS and FLAC. There is a difference, but it is subtle.

By the way Kraftwerke blows...... (IMHO).

[Mallette]

While it may be true that much of modern metal music is already being compressed as it is recorded; that does not make it an inferior style of music.

I don't know of any professional recording gear that compresses on record. Why would anyone do that? I am assuming you are not confusing amplitude compression (also completely unnecessary, IMHO, but common) with audio compression. Either of these is inherently and expressly destructive, but at least dynamic compression doesn't throw away audio. Whether a Strad or Pink Floyd, dynamic compression certainly doesn't make the music an "inferior syle," it just makes it unnatural. Dynamic range is, IMHO, the domain of the composer and musician, not the engineer.

Dave

[Don Richard]

And why would you want them to all be the same volume, sounds like the over compressed pop radio stations to me.

So that I won't get blown out of my chair when another disc is played.

Not only different volume levels between discs, but also level differences between songs on the same disc. There is no excuse for the levels to be jumping around from song to song. This indicates that poor, or no, mastering was done. During the mastering phase the table of contents for the CD is generated, the spacing between songs is set and the levels are matched. Many producers cheap out on the mastering, as really good mastering engineers are expensive, and the producers apparently think most listeners won't notice or care. The proliferation of inferior audio formats for the music-on-the-go crowd ensures that as time goes on this situation will only get worse.

The louder discs have been intentionally mastered for max level. It doesn't take a lot of skill to run an album through a TC Electronic Maximizer with all the settings on LOUD. And the louder discs sound really bad on decent systems, as you have noted.

[Ironsave]

While it may be true that much of modern metal music is already being compressed as it is recorded; that does not make it an inferior style of music.

I don't know of any professional recording gear that compresses on record. Why would anyone do that? I am assuming you are not confusing amplitude compression (also completely unnecessary, IMHO, but common) with audio compression. Either of these is inherently and expressly destructive, but at least dynamic compression doesn't throw away audio. Whether a Strad or Pink Floyd, dynamic compression certainly doesn't make the music an "inferior syle," it just makes it unnatural. Dynamic range is, IMHO, the domain of the composer and musician, not the engineer.

Dave

A lot of Metal music (IE: Underground) is recorded at (somewhat) lower quality.

Often times; this is due to budget constraints on bands that have not made it yet.

My point was simply that there is a lot of great music out there that can not be or is not available in super HQ recordings.

(Just because it is in .WAV format on a CD does not mean it is the best quality recording possible).

I realize this is slightly off topic regarding mp3s; but I could show you many 320KBS mp3s that I have that sound way better than other bands music on CD or FLAC. It is not just mp3 compression that results in lower quality source.

Do you get what I mean?

[Mallette]

A lot of Metal music (IE: Underground) is recorded at (somewhat) lower quality.

Often times; this is due to budget constraints on bands that have not made it yet.

An Intel 1701 chipset found on most motherboards is capable of recording uncompressed at 24/192. Anyone who can't afford that can't afford to eat.

Dave