|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
View Poll Results: Are you an audiophile? | |||
Yes | 96 | 55.17% | |
No | 78 | 44.83% | |
Voters: 174. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
Are you an audiophile?
Just a simple polling guys... I wonder if there are lot people here are audiophiles. I'm not one, my ears hardly could differ the quality of 160 kbps with 320 kbps mp3. Honestly I don't want to be an audiophile since it will be troublesome for me If I demand all my songs are lossless.
Double Post: damn, I want to make this a public poll. Moderator, is there any way to solve this? Jam it back in, in the dark.
Last edited by eriol33; Apr 4, 2006 at 11:11 AM.
Reason: Automerged additional post.
|
Over the past few years, and after originally stumbling upon Gamingforce Audio way back when, I have slowly developped into a audiophile.
I have some friends that look at me weird when i show them the file sizes of the songs i have. But it always makes them go "It's no different" that urks me.. loseless sounds way different then lower encoded songs. There's nowhere I can't reach. FTP//Music |
Can I claim to be halfway there? While like you I probably couldn't tell the difference between 160 and 320, I can definitely tell when I'm listening to a 120 that someone apparently recorded in their basement.
Maybe it's just that all the music I've been finding/ripping (I try to rip at highest level possible) has been high, which has gotten me used to that standard. Back when I was grateful to get music off Napster on my dial-up (a sign of how long ago that was), I would be happy with 96 kbps music as long as it worked, haha. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I can't stand 128kbps MP3's for instance. I'm not one of those "OH I CAN HEAR THE CRISP HIGHS AND THE BROODING LOWS WITH A 5.3 METRE SOUNDSTAGE AND I CAN HEAR THE SOUND OF THE DRUMMER'S EYELIDS CLOSING" type audiophiles, but if someone took my AKG K26s and I had to go back to using crappy sony in ear headphones, that would suck.
And VBR is your best friend. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Without a doubt, yes. Many years of performing music have developed my hearing extensively, and I can tell a distinct difference between low-end and high-end sound. For the moment, my Hi-Fi setup is limited merely to headphones, although I may finally make the jump this summer and pick up a decent speaker rig (Likely a Pair of B&W DM601S3 or 602S3, haven't decided on a proper Amp/Receiver yet).
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Definitely not. I'm a wannabe audiophile - what with my plans to purchase some $300 US retail earbuds and my obsession with having high quality VBR mp3s for everything (you can't really tell much difference between this and lossless). I'm also obssessed with retagging and renaming everything that I download, except for #gamemp3s releases.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
questions for non-audiophiles: are you actually wishing to become an audiophile? Why's that? Well, I'm afraid to become one actually, if that happens that would mean I must start collecting lossless then!
How ya doing, buddy?
|
For me though, VBR and 192 has become the defacto standard. I also am going to try and get FLAC for what I want to 'archive' to CD. Like Mucknuggle, I'm only a wannabe What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
That's stupid.
That's like being ashamed of wanting the best of something. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
I'm not sure. I voted no because 192 kbps CBR is quite good enough for me, and I wouldn't want anything better than that. I see being an audiophile as a frustrating pursuit, because your hearing is going to get worse no matter what you do. Mine's worse now than it was at age 20.
How ya doing, buddy? |
I'm definitely not. I hate music encoded in less than 192kbs, since its not really that great to listen to, but aside from that, I don't mind. Having everything encoded in high bitrates would just mess with my iPod battery/disk space anyway!
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I would say I'm more of an audio enthusiast than an audiophile. If it sounds good to me, it sounds good. I'm not going to ramble on about soundstage, palpability (?), speed, and all those other non-technical terms I hear a lot of audiophiles (90% of whom are probably average joes) spewing out.
"Oh yes, there's too much mid-bass, the midtones are muddy, and the highs are a bit too rolled off." Ugh. Some of the people on the Head-fi forums are especially bad about this. One of them just made a post stating that he had spent $5000 on headphones and amps since finding that forum. Five-thousand dollars? What a waste. Nobody needs a pair of AKG K-1000 headphones. (Headspeakers?) I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I have been for quite a while. I fact the only person I truely trust to make perfect CD rips, is (surprise) myself. I think everyone else does something wrong to fudge up the rip. I only use mp3 because its so well supported. If I had a digital music player (with a large hard drive), I'd just rip everything to Monkey's Audio and never worry about having to hear mp3s anymore from my own rips.
Of course I'm too poor to get audio equipment good enough to hear the difference between -V 2 mp3s and lossless (best example of that: my headphones cost $12). I was speaking idiomatically. |
Actually I am not an audiophile. The reason is that some of my favorite recordings were made in the 20s and of course the sound was horrible, but they're still great recordings. As long as you can make out the nuances, I don't see what the big deal is. It's like people complaining that Citizen Kane is not as good a movie if it's not seen on HDTV.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Being an audiophile doesn't mean that you hate low-quality recordings, Minion. My personal favorite CD was recorded in 1977. Is it as full and rich as some modern recordings I have of the songs? No. But the precision and style are still there.
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
How ya doing, buddy? |
No, I suppose we don't. Although I must say I would be very sad indeed without my music. Sometimes I feel that it is the only thing maintaining my sanity.
Most amazing jew boots |
I have tin ears, so being an audiophile is out of the question.
While I can sometimes detect some muddiness in the high or low ranges of a 128 kbps MP3, more often than not I don't. Only by comparing a 128 and, say, a 192 side by side can I detect any difference. This is actually a benefit, as 192 VBR MP3's are widely available--almost the "standard" these days--and very portable. Frankly, people who insist on lossless-only rips or spend thousands of dollars on expensive stereo systems frighten me. Kind of like people who consider themselves gourmands or artistes, actually--there can be a level of snobbishness about audiophilery. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I'd say just settle for what tests the limits of your soundcard and your ears. Anything that goes higher than that (for example if it can output sound above 22000Hz, beyond what any human can hear) is a waste of money. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Insisting solely on lossless rips though, is just plain impractical on your hard drives.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
That's another thing. My classical collection alone is far too large to be loseless audio. I would need like, the Pentagon to fit it all.
FELIPE NO |
I'm an audiophile, but I'm not so much into the digital music realm -- Vinyl is where it's at, baby. I swear, if you listen to classical recordings on a good sound system, with a good needle (and the vinyl is in decent shape, of course) you will know what I'm talking about. A full, rich sound that, no matter how high-bit they make CDs, it doesn't sound nearly the same.
As for MP3s, it depends on the music. For pop/rock and stuff I don't care about, I can *handle* 128. I don't like to, but unfortunately unless I actually want to pay for some of the music I have (heaven forbid!), I have to take what I can find. With my classical music I usually rip in .ogg format, just because I think it sounds better. Very little of my collection is lossless, simply because I don't have that kind of space on my computer. But it sounds vastly better than any of my 256 MP3s. Double Post:
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Arkhangelsk; Apr 4, 2006 at 01:57 PM.
Reason: Automerged additional post.
|
Chocobo |
No, I'm not an audiophile. I don't have a single lossless music file in my comp, and i probably will never have one since it's such a waste.
I like my music 192CBR or over 200VBR, I can stand 128, but if a song is in 128 I'd look for a higher bitrate version unless it's not possible. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audiophile heaven | KeyLogic | General Game Music Discussion | 1 | Aug 13, 2007 05:31 AM |