Are you an audiophile?

I make sure that most of my songs in my iPod have a BitRate of 128-192, just to maintain space and song quality.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

As for sound quality..... really, anything over 160 is pointless. That's CD quality and unless you are trying to listen for a difference, you probably won't hear one (and even then most people won't hear one, only people with really sensitive, tuned ears will). At a certain point the human ear can't even hear it. This variable bitrate crap is a waste of space on the hard drive.

The "160Kbps is CD quality" is a myth. They used to say that about 128Kbps too. Fact of the matter is that CD Quality is 44,100 samples per second of 16-bit audio data in 2 channels. That's (Roughly) 1200Kbps. MP3, OGG, and all of the other popular non-lossless audio formats use compression formulas that throw out and lose data; thus, they are inherently NOT CD-quality. Lossless formats are essentially like taking a WAV file and putting it in a ZIP or RAR Archive - smaller file, but no data is lost, preserving full CD quality.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yes, yes i am, but on the crappy headphones i use you cant tell the diffirence between 128-320 now lower than that, it just sounds like absoult crap, but i can deal with it, because they are head phones. but generaly as long as the frequencey is at lease 44.1+mhz, I can tell the dif in the hz though, oh man can i, i cant stand anything less that 44.1 it just is like rapping your ears. oh, but the new Bond DVD i got is GLORYUSE! 5.1 32bit audio on the DVD site, it is the most beautiful thing ever

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I try not to listen or atleast download anything below 192kbps.

But alot of my tunes are from OCremix.org and those remixes are at 128kbps, and for the most part it's fine. Heh.

So wtf did I even vote 'YES' to the poll? I guess I'm not really. But I would PREFER to listen to high quality MP3s so... I'm a wannabe audiophile? I'unno, u tell me.

FELIPE NO

Can't say I am an audiophile. I only use lossless to archive my collection and burn 1.1 copies of OOP CDs. I also can't say I can tell the difference on most music. If I focus and it's a low bitrate, maybe. But again, that's not why I use lossless...

The fact, I only use a Soundblaster Live 5.1 card and a pair of $50 speakers proves it! I am definitely no audiophile!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

GREAT, this thread made me into an audiophile, I can't even listen to 128kbps songs anymore. frig, this is going to do wonders for my bandwidth.

Most amazing jew boots

In other words, you base your life on other people's perceptions?

Threads don't turn you into an audiophile. Hearing really good music on really good equipment (or any variation on the "hearing sound better than I've ever heard before" theme) does.

Most amazing jew boots

True... no, I don't base my life on other people's perceptions. But the bit rate of mp3s was never really brought up in my mind. I now favor my songs which are at 192-256kbps over the older 128s. Just a recent realization which was over exaggerated with my quick response in this thread being bashed by you.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

You guys are also guilty of turning me into an audiophile as well. I deleted 60 gigs of music; everything except a couple soundtracks that are in 160kbps. Now I will only listen to audiophile-quality mp3s on my laptop.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

That's scary, how come you deleted the collection of, omg, 60 gb so easily? I would cry if that happens to my hdd.:eyebrow:

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by TubeRacer

You guys are also guilty of turning me into an audiophile as well. I deleted 60 gigs of music; everything except a couple soundtracks that are in 160kbps. Now I will only listen to audiophile-quality mp3s on my laptop.

Please, at least tell me you listen to music on your laptop through earphones. Still, listening to music through a onboard soundcard (through a laptop no less) can't sound that good to any audiophile.
I only say this as my laptop's speakers sounds terrible compared to my desktop sound setup =/.

Originally Posted by eriol

That's scary, how come you deleted the collection of, omg, 60 gb so easily? I would cry if that happens to my hdd.

Haha, I regularly delete my entire collection off of my hdds (I format my music drives every now and then) and keep dvdr copies as backup. I'm crazy, I know.

But to permanently delete stuff from my collection.. I think I would shed a tear too .

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It's about half and half. These Koss headphones from Wal-Mart seem to output very high quality sound, but I'm not sure because my laptop's speakers are supposedly pretty good as well. I don't think it really matters as long as the mp3s are at least 160 though.

FELIPE NO

Yeah, I'm yet another audio enthusiast rather than audiophile. In some songs I can tell the difference between lossless and higher-end MP3 encoding (192 in CBR more often than VBR), but my ears aren't quite trained enough to make me care all that much, and I'd rather keep it that way. Being an audiophile seems like hard work, always complaining about everyone else's encoding inadequacies and having to upgrade your systems to maintain bragging rights. It's just not worth it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Kairyu

Please, at least tell me you listen to music on your laptop through earphones. Still, listening to music through a onboard soundcard (through a laptop no less) can't sound that good to any audiophile.
I only say this as my laptop's speakers sounds terrible compared to my desktop sound setup =/.

Haha, I regularly delete my entire collection off of my hdds (I format my music drives every now and then) and keep dvdr copies as backup. I'm crazy, I know.

But to permanently delete stuff from my collection.. I think I would shed a tear too .

The hell I would to, I've been hoarding mp3s since 2003. But I do plan to replace a much of my music as possible with a higher quality encode. Conicidentally my oldest VGM is actually burned to CD, which means it's easily replaceable (come to think of it, they are easy to find and download songs, maybe I should just replace them if the worst should happen).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Are you guys fucking serious? Just because of sound quality, you hate some of the songs? Isn't the content more important? You guys must hate any old recordings of great artists then.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Trigunnerz

Just because of sound quality, you hate some of the songs? Isn't the content more important? You guys must hate any old recordings of great artists then.

It's more of a matter of achieving the best possible playback of a given song IMHO...though, unfortunately, there are quite a few "audiophiles" (not very good ones, really) who seem to buy music to listen to their sound systems, not the other way around. -_-

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I would have to call myself an Audiophile, although I'm not a very good one. None of my music is in lossless. I often times will listen to a CD in my computer, because I can honestly tell the difference.

I don't like downloading lossless rips though. It discourages me from buying the CD, which I often do. I really like supporting artists.

Most amazing jew boots

I recently got an Ipod and started ripping my CD's to 192 MP3. I did a test with 128 AAC files vs 192 and then 320 mp3 and they didn't sound any different to me (either through headphones or my PC). Now I just rip in 128 AAC for space purposes, since it doesn't sound any worse than larger files.

I figure if I ever need to archive "perfect" copies, I'll just buy the CD, like I usually do. Lossless files are too bulky to be worth the trouble (both in terms of downloading and storing).

I'm also pretty happy with a $50 GE speaker set-up and $20 Radioshack in-ear phones (which I use interchangably with the original Ipod earbuds). I'd probably invest in a more expensive pair of headphones if I could sample them to hear a noticable difference beforehand.

So I clicked on 'no'.

I was speaking idiomatically.

After hearing what lossless audio has to offer "against" a vbr mp3 rip or even a real cd, I became quite indifferent about the subject.

There really is loss. And the difference isn't that great.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I couldnt care less what the bitrate is. the system youre playing stuff on is way more important. 128kbps sounds fine on a good stereo. plus most of my stuff is on CD/vinyl anyway.

Originally Posted by Arainach

computers are lousy Hi-Fi sources anyway. Even if you get an EMU0404 or something it still won't compare to a good SACD player.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I couldnt care less what the bitrate is. the system youre playing stuff on is way more important. 128kbps sounds fine on a good stereo. plus most of my stuff is on CD/vinyl anyway.

An audio setup is only as good as the weakest link. And 128kbps is a pretty goddamn weak link.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm not obsessed with quality. As long as it's tolerable, I don't mind. 128 is fine with me. While higher bitrates are great, there's no room for them on this wonderful hard drive, with its amazing limit of 27GB.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

An audio setup is only as good as the weakest link. And 128kbps is a pretty goddamn weak link.

true but my point is it still sounds good.
its like comparing DVD to high def; obviously higher definition looks better but DVDs look fine.
I guess this means I cant be in audiophile club.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by GoldfishX

I recently got an Ipod and started ripping my CD's to 192 MP3. I did a test with 128 AAC files vs 192 and then 320 mp3 and they didn't sound any different to me (either through headphones or my PC). Now I just rip in 128 AAC for space purposes, since it doesn't sound any worse than larger files.

I figure if I ever need to archive "perfect" copies, I'll just buy the CD, like I usually do. Lossless files are too bulky to be worth the trouble (both in terms of downloading and storing).

I'm also pretty happy with a $50 GE speaker set-up and $20 Radioshack in-ear phones (which I use interchangably with the original Ipod earbuds). I'd probably invest in a more expensive pair of headphones if I could sample them to hear a noticable difference beforehand.

So I clicked on 'no'.

You'd say you'll just get the CD, let me spell it out for you:
Lossless audio: 350-550MB, or 8-13 CDs worth of perfect audio per 4.7GB 12cm DVD+-R

CD: 1 CDs worth of music per 12cm CD-R/ROM

DVD+-R is a great space saver, and if you keep it on an external hard drive, even better. I don't throw away my CDs, but it's always nice to have a perfect, tagged backup.
Regular CD

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

true but my point is it still sounds good.
its like comparing DVD to high def; obviously higher definition looks better but DVDs look fine.
I guess this means I cant be in audiophile club.

While I can see your point, in fact it's like comparing old grainy black-and-white picked-up-with-an-antenna TV to the latest HDTV images. 128kbps loses an insane amount of information. I mean, I could tell the difference between 128 and 160 (and higher) back on my Plantronics p90, and nowadays with my Senns (either pair) or a decent set of speakers..... yeah.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?