Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Record Stores face extinction


framheim

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stuff
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' date=' 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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

192khz isn't in your hearing range so it wouldn't be of benefit realistically.

192khz is the samplerate, it's nothing to do with the range of human hearing, you must be confused again :p

Higher samplerates mean less aliasing, the nyquist theory suggests that 44.1khz is "enough", but when you're talking about recording audio and then processing it digitally there is absolutely no harm in using samplerates as high as 192khz, infact I'm sure you mentioned earlier about the idea of non-audible sounds which the body can "feel", this is as good an argument as any for high samplerates as it's only bringing you closer to the actual analogue signal....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huuuuh??

well, when i say decent i mean i get the same discount as student types get, i don't get as good as when i worked there but it all counts when you're skint and want cd's now rather than waiting for 4 days to get them from play. and it only depends on the price that it's for sale at normally, i don't always get a discount but it's nice to get now and again and i never request it as i'd feel a bit cheeky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

192khz is the samplerate, it's nothing to do with the range of human hearing, you must be confused again :p

Higher samplerates mean less aliasing, the nyquist theory suggests that 44.1khz is "enough", but when you're talking about recording audio and then processing it digitally there is absolutely no harm in using samplerates as high as 192khz, infact I'm sure you mentioned earlier about the idea of non-audible sounds which the body can "feel", this is as good an argument as any for high samplerates as it's only bringing you closer to the actual analogue signal....

Ok, i'm with you. Cheers :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, i'm with you. Cheers :up:

So you agree that 320kbps 44khz is adequate for consumer audio at this point in time then? Don't worry, give it a year or two and lossless codecs like FLAC will be standard.

Unless of course, heaven forbid, industry heavyweights like itunes, in collusion with the major labels engage in a conspiracy to deprive the average joe of high bitrate recordings ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that 320kbps 44khz is adequate for consumer audio at this point in time then? Don't worry, give it a year or two and lossless codecs like FLAC will be standard.

Unless of course, heaven forbid, industry heavyweights like itunes, in collusion with the major labels engage in a conspiracy to deprive the average joe of high bitrate recordings ;)

I never actually said it wasn't. Like i said previously i prefer CD as a media, but i'm not completely against compressed audio either. I already owned up to ripping all my music onto a hard drive for convenience as i like to be able to stream all round my house (yes that's right i even go a further step in compromising audio quality).

In the end i think there's enough room for both formats to co-exist and for everyone to be able to make money out of it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would make you a hypocrite then. You should try and switch off the sales pitch mentality once in a while.

Not at all, i'll generally listen to a CD if i'm in the front room rather than mp3 because i prefer listening to CDs but it is useful for the other rooms and also for wireless portable devices.

It's not hypocritical at all as i can see the benefits of mp3 on a convenience level, but i prefer CD quality over that.

I have never paid for downloaded material and i don't download music at all now, and i don't intend starting either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never paid for downloaded material and i don't download music at all now, and i don't intend starting either.

Well if you don't buy music online and never intend to, what on earth are you doing trying to lecture the rest of us on the pros and cons of the medium when you're resigned to sticking with the old paradigm?

By all means continue to buy CD's from shops so you can bask in their 16bit glory in your finely tuned room full of overpriced consumer hifi equipment, but if, as you admit, you rip your cd's to mp3 so you can listen to them for convenience I'm afraid you most definately *are* a hypocrite, given the rubbish you've been spouting in this thread.

Things are changing and you're missing out if you wish to cling to such ridiculous, misguided attitudes because of some bullshit dogma, I feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you don't buy music online and never intend to, what on earth are you doing trying to lecture the rest of us on the pros and cons of the medium when you're resigned to sticking with the old paradigm?

By all means continue to buy CD's from shops so you can bask in their 16bit glory in your finely tuned room full of overpriced consumer hifi equipment, but if, as you admit, you rip your cd's to mp3 so you can listen to them for convenience I'm afraid you most definately *are* a hypocrite, given the rubbish you've been spouting in this thread.

Things are changing and you're missing out if you wish to cling to such ridiculous, misguided attitudes because of some bullshit dogma, I feel sorry for you.

You're just spoiling for an argument now rather than being informative and constructive. Back to the old Stripey :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just spoiling for an argument now rather than being informative and constructive. Back to the old Stripey :D

No, you're just straightup wrong, misinformed, misguided, out of your depth and a hypocrite and I'm pointing this out. Sorry if you feel affronted but you did ask me to explain back on page 2 of this thread or whatever it was. It's quite clear that you don't really understand how digital audio works, everything you've said has the vague smell of bullshit about it that is so typical from a hifi salesman, with a pinch of desperate google/wikipedia searching thrown in ;) The way you've tiptoed around your arguments is just shameful.

"the speed of your computer affects the quality of the mp3 encoding"

"192khz samplerate is beyond the range of human hearing"

come on man, it's comical. You sell hifi gear, I know it's easy to develop a bit of a condescending attitude when you're dealing with the general public, but seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're just straightup wrong, misinformed, misguided, out of your depth and a hypocrite and I'm pointing this out. Sorry if you feel affronted but you did ask me to explain back on page 2 of this thread or whatever it was. It's quite clear that you don't really understand how digital audio works, everything you've said has the vague smell of bullshit about it that is so typical from a hifi salesman, with a pinch of desperate google/wikipedia searching thrown in ;) The way you've tiptoed around your arguments is just shameful.

"the speed of your computer affects the quality of the mp3 encoding"

"192khz samplerate is beyond the range of human hearing"

come on man, it's comical. You sell hifi gear, I know it's easy to develop a bit of a condescending attitude when you're dealing with the general public, but seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it.

I disagree. I may not fully understand computers but i know a lot about hi-fi and home cinema equipment. There's no tiptoe tactics going on either. And i'm not ashamed to admit that i had misunderstood a few things here and there.

I've not been condescending either, i have an opinion on why i prefer CD to lossy codecs as far as music is concerned. I feel like i've learned a few things here, which is only a good thing in my opinion as its helped further my understanding of things i might not have overly looked into otherwise.

If you want me to tear you a new areshole try your luck with surround sound set-ups ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...