»

[idol_wild]

Originally Posted by Steven Dedalus

Ahh, the fabled One Up website...

It just seemed to be hanging over us all the time, like the Sword of Damocles, soaking up more and more moeny.

I've no idea what became of it, and it was always a sore point that we seemed to be lacking in that vital area. In terms of a myspace, frankly none of us seemed to have the internet at home at the time, and weren't able to do it.

So there you go.

I started a One Up myspace. True story. Using the web connection at One Up.

Then Fred told me to stop using the internet connection: "This is a shop, nae a library".

This is all true.

Progress, eh?

Such a poorly run shop. And I am oly too glad former staff members are quick to point this out to them.

Originally Posted by idol_wild

I started a One Up myspace. True story. Using the web connection at One Up.

Then Fred told me to stop using the internet connection: "This is a shop, nae a library".

.

Aye, but you were probably looking at naughty pictures or something.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Uhm, if your source is a physically damaged CD, the result is going to reflect that wether you're using 64kbps mono mp3 or just ripping the raw waveform, it tells us nothing about the quality of mp3 codecs themselves.

If you rip a CD, and play back the raw waveform then the 320kbps CBR mp3 on the same sound source (i.e a computer with an audio interface that has high quality D/A converters) you will not be able to tell the difference.

I'm surprised you're so confident about the quality of the CD standard, when the spec (16bit, 44.1khz) is designed with the same tradeoffs of wordlength/samplerate vs what general concensus tells us humans are capable of perceiving that lies behind the MP3 standard.
Most modern studios now will be working with 24bit audio using 96 or 192khz A/D converters (which many people will argue is overkill, especially 192khz) so the CD you buy in the shops has already had generational loss introduced when the original recording is dithered down to the 16bit CD standard. Surely with your bat-like hearing you should be up in arms about the loss in quality?

It depends on what sort of set-up you're using. If you're listening to them both over shitty laptop speakers then you won't hear a difference at all but if you've got a high quality pair of speakers you may well do depending on your own hearing. You can't tell me what i can and can't hear Stripey and you'll notice i've not chided you for not being able to hear the difference (which personally is something i find shocking from someone of your background).

Don't get me wrong, i think mp3 and other codecs have their place but i'd rather have a higher quality physical product at the end of the day and for me personally CD is that product.

Current CD sound quality is not in question though. There is nothing more that they can do with it that would have any benefit. Whereas there will always be something that they can do with mp3 encoding etc that will make it better or closer to CD quality.

And what you're saying Studios are using is overkill.

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

It depends on what sort of set-up you're uzzzzzzzzzz

Ferchrissakes, give it up...

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Frosty Jack

Ferchrissakes, give it up...

Cork it old man.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

It depends on what sort of set-up you're using. If you're listening to them both over shitty laptop speakers then you won't hear a difference at all but if you've got a high quality pair of speakers you may well do depending on your own hearing.

Well in the context I listen to and produce music in (calibrated, properly positioned bi-amped studio reference monitors which I'm very familiar with listening to all sorts of material on, driven by a 24bit/48khz audio interface) I render all my audio as 32bit floating point PCM, and after conversion to 320kbps 44khz stereo mp3 I don't hear any meaningful qualitative difference.
The vast majority of people who buy music are going to be listening to it on an ipod, a car stereo, a 30 quid cd player in the kitchen, a 150 quid stereo in the living room, maybe a midrange seperates system and so on. All these different environments, different shapes of room, speaker placement etc have more of an impact on the sound than the 320kbps mp3 encoding process has.
Sat infront of my speakers I notice a dip in the highs if I'm wearing a baseball cap, I just recently switched to using a CRT monitor instead of my laptop and it's dramatically changed how things sound just because it's physically altering the sound characteristics of the room. I'm not deaf.
I'm sorry but the vast majority of people are not going to notice the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a CD in the typical listening situation, the notion that 320kbps is somehow an horrendously inferior product just does not reflect the reality of how most people listen to music. Of course, it is your job to sell ludicrously expensive hifi equipment to people with more money than sense, which explains your fumbling, soundbitey arguments and vague understanding of how digital audio works.

Current CD sound quality is not in question though. There is nothing more that they can do with it that would have any benefit. Whereas there will always be something that they can do with mp3 encoding etc that will make it better or closer to CD quality.

You're wrong again, I've already told you that 24 and 32bit audio at samplerates as high as 192khz are standard in studios - working at higher wordlengths affords extra headroom which means greater dynamic range, it's not overkill. The CD standard has always been a comprimise and represents the bare minimum considered realistic for accurate reproduction. So it can certainly be improved.
Anyway, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that lossless FLAC and even WAV downloads are starting to become commonplace, can you tell the difference between a CD and a downloaded WAV?

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Well in the context I listen to and produce music in (calibrated, properly positioned bi-amped studio reference monitors which I'm very familiar with listening to all sorts of material on, driven by a 24bit/48khz audio interface) I render all my audio as 32bit floating point PCM, and after conversion to 320kbps 44khz stereo mp3 I don't hear any meaningful qualitative difference.
The vast majority of people who buy music are going to be listening to it on an ipod, a car stereo, a 30 quid cd player in the kitchen, a 150 quid stereo in the living room, maybe a midrange seperates system and so on. All these different environments, different shapes of room, speaker placement etc have more of an impact on the sound than the 320kbps mp3 encoding process has.
Sat infront of my speakers I notice a dip in the highs if I'm wearing a baseball cap, I just recently switched to using a CRT monitor instead of my laptop and it's dramatically changed how things sound just because it's physically altering the sound characteristics of the room. I'm not deaf.
I'm sorry but the vast majority of people are not going to notice the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a CD in the typical listening situation, the notion that 320kbps is somehow an horrendously inferior product just does not reflect the reality of how most people listen to music. Of course, it is your job to sell ludicrously expensive hifi equipment to people with more money than sense, which explains your fumbling, soundbitey arguments and vague understanding of how digital audio works.




You're wrong again, I've already told you that 24 and 32bit audio at samplerates as high as 192khz are standard in studios - working at higher wordlengths affords extra headroom which means greater dynamic range, it's not overkill. The CD standard has always been a comprimise and represents the bare minimum considered realistic for accurate reproduction. So it can certainly be improved.
Anyway, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that lossless FLAC and even WAV downloads are starting to become commonplace, can you tell the difference between a CD and a downloaded WAV?

At what point did i say that i thought 320kbps is "horrendously inferior"? It's a personal preference, what's wrong with that?

I don't have a vague understanding at all, i know a fair bit more than your average person. I'm not trained in the scientific principles behind it or claim to be. You may know more about sound than me, you may not.

And no, i'm not wrong. I was stating an opinion, and it was on something that you were using as an argument earlier, 192khz isn't in your hearing range so it wouldn't be of benefit realistically. Your argument is so cack handed and you seem to have the most bizarre double standards as well.

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by idol_wild

I started a One Up myspace. True story. Using the web connection at One Up.

Then Fred told me to stop using the internet connection: "This is a shop, nae a library".

This is all true.

Progress, eh?

Such a poorly run shop. And I am oly too glad former staff members are quick to point this out to them.

this is all kind what i was alluding to in my initial post. one up should have long ago realised that they could make more money online by either selling a large portion of their second hand stock on ebay or by just having a web presence. unfortunately it's not likely to happen anytime soon for a number of reasons. maybe one of the kids will get on the ball and drive it forward for their dads. or they could put mike in charge and all would be right with the world, maybe. at the moment it just seems to be going through the motions of being a record shop.

what they really need to do is ship adam cresser back from glasgow and hand him the keys to the shop. so many good staff have moved onto other things who would've been quite happy working there for the rest of their years but it just has never been in a position to keep people for long periods of time(mark, tich and yogi obviously excluded but what else would they do?).

i still try and buy most of my music from one up but then they normally give me a decent price on stuff as i worked there for ages. they're pretty good at ordering stuff still and i just like going in for a chat when i buy a cd. i don't have much disposable income these days so don't buy many but when i do it's good to have a browse.

maybe we should turn this thread into a what would we like to see one up do and we can try and make it a better fitter record shop.

no1: sell stuff on ebay to start making money!

no2: promote the place! when i left it was the 25th anniversary of one up and they did practically nothing to promote this. tie ins with venues and local radio would help. perhaps original 106 and andy could think of something for this.

what would everyone else like to see? what would make record shops more attractive for people to shop in rather than sitting at home?

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by stripey

stuff

Originally Posted by alkaline

more stuff

=

Vinny Gambini: [Vinny hears a drip in the motel bathroom] Weren't you the last one to use the bathroom?
Lisa: So?
Vinny Gambini: Well, did you use the faucet?
Lisa: Yeah.
Vinny Gambini: Then why didn'tcha turn it off?
Lisa: I DID turn it off!
Vinny Gambini: Well, if you turned it off, why am I listening to it?
Lisa: Did it ever occur to you it could be turned off AND drip at the same time?
Vinny Gambini: No. Because if you'd turned it off, it wouldn't drip!
Lisa: Maybe it's broken.
Vinny Gambini: Is that what you're saying? It's broken?
Lisa: Yeah. That's it, it's broken.
Vinny Gambini: You sure?
Lisa: I'm positive.
Vinny Gambini: Maybe you didn't twist it hard enough.
Lisa: I twisted it just right.
Vinny Gambini: How could you be so sure?
Lisa: [sighs] If you will look in the manual, you will see that this particular model faucet requires a range of 10 to 16 foot-pounds of torque. I routinely twist the maximum allowable torquage.
Vinny Gambini: Well, how could you be sure you used 16 foot-pounds of torque?
Lisa: Because I used a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series torque wrench. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers.
Vinny Gambini: Well, in that case, how can you be sure THAT's accurate?
Lisa: Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate!
[She rips a page out of a magazine and hands it to him]
Lisa: Here's the certificate of validation.
Vinny Gambini: Dead on balls accurate?
Lisa: It's an industry term.
Vinny Gambini: [tosses paper away] I guess the fucking thing is broken.

[Panda Strong]

Originally Posted by daveofficer

i still try and buy most of my music from one up but then they normally give me a decent price on stuff as i worked there for ages.

Huuuuh??