This is topic How do you like your Music served? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003016
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-06-2004, 03:23 PM:
 
Reel to Reel
8-Track Tape
Audio Cassette
Vinyl
CD
Mini Disc
Super Audio CD
DTS Audio
MP3
MP3 on CD
Other Digital Files
Sirius Satellite
XM Satellite
Brain Implant

I'm still stuck on CD. I wish I were into MP3 and had all my music on a server that would link to my car and home. But I'm not into ripping or purchasing my music again. I have Sirius in my car and that is where I listen to most music these days.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-06-2004, 04:25 PM:
 
I'm all for CD! There's nothing like adding to a legitimate, legally obtained, store-bought music collection. I'm up to 400 now (more impressive than most, not as impressive as some).

I'll take CD's and rip them to .mp3 just so I can have shuffled background music while on the computer, and occasionally burn compilations for my car CD player. I'm thinking about one of those little mp3 players (nothing fancy like iPod, though), but nothing more than that.

I still believe in CD's, perhaps since that's the format I grew up with. Long live the 5" shiny, silver, circle thing!
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-06-2004, 04:47 PM:
 
Still mostly CD here too--about 900 or so. Still have a handful of LPs and cassettes too. Haven't listened to any of those in a long long time, even though I still have some very expensive playback equipment with which to do so.

Reel-to-reel and later delta-modulation digital recorders were sold off years ago. Never got into L-cassette, minidisc, DAT, R-DAT, ADAT, or egads, 8-track! [Razz]

Am not into MP3's at all, though I suppose one of these days I will be--I admit the idea of MP3 on a portable disc or memory player sounds appealing. Don't plan on getting into SACDs or DVDAs unless I'm forced to. Sirius and XM Radio too will have to wait until I can afford a car again.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-06-2004, 04:53 PM:
 
These are my prefrences for listening to music......

Live!

I always prefer it live and am fortunate enough to live in a place where I can hear all types live music on a fairly regular basis. The Utah Symphony is awsome to hear live and we have many other night clubs here that have a wide variety of live stuff. A regular meal of live music also gives one a very good refrence as to how good,or bad, audio sound reproduction can be these days.....

Reel to Reel analog:
Studer A-80, Nagra 4S or Technics RS-1500 series only! Nothing else qualifies as Reel to Reel, this is as good as it gets!

Good SACD and DVD-A:
Either the Sony SCD-1 or the less expensive SCD-777ES is as good as this gets. The Pioneer DV-45 would be third.
Ya have to be careful here as there are more crap SACD's and DVD-A's than good! The manufacturers were in a rush to get software on the shelves. Fortunately there are some real knock out SACDs appearing these days that sound as good or better than the master tapes they come from.

Vinyl...:
I won't even touch this even though I just came home from my local used vinyl store......

After these listening meduims its just background music to me and it doesn't really matter much what the source is...

While we're at it as for playback equipment other than the above listed items would be....

Any Dynaudio Speaker System, any Pass Labs Aleph or XA series electronics, or older Krell electronics such as the KSA-50, 80, or 100.

These days I build all my own electronics, mainly based on Pass Labs designs, both the Alephs and the XA series. But I build mine with even higher grade components and get far superior performance than the factory equipment. Tubes suck!

Mark
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2004, 04:58 PM:
 
When I buy pre-recorded music, I want at the very least a "Red Book" standard CD with uncompressed Linear PCM 2.0 audio. Don't ask me to pay for lossy, degraded, low quality, torture compressed MP3 or AAC files. I'm not paying for something only equal to radio quality that is being touted as CD quality. Bullshit.
[fu]

A special DTS 5.1 CD is pretty cool, but I usually want to have the original 2.0 LCPM mix as well. LCPM 2.0 is important for portability so I can play it in my pickup truck's CD player or take it to work and listen to it on a bookshelf system.

It really surprises me how the music industry has gotten so paranoid over the MP3 thing and people trading compromised, degraded, not-near-master-quality MP3 files. If the morons would bother to point out to customers how a music CD is superior in quality to stuff you download off the Internet then maybe that might help.

Of course the other thing is putting more value in the CDs themselves, that way the upwards of $20 price tag can be justified. I haven't gotten into the DVD-A or Super Audio CD thing at this point because I don't like the paltry amount of titles being made available in the formats. And the hardware is still not quite to the arrangement I want. I want full digital interconnectivity between the players and receivers for the high bandwidth audio signals. I'm not paying extra just to send analog 5.1 line outs from a player with no bass management. Screw that.

Music CDs cost around the same as many new DVDs. So the value needs to be about the same if the price is going to be about the same. Include bonus DVD discs with music video content or some other stuff. I remember when 12" vinyl LPs were popular in the 1970s. It was common to get some posters and other cool stuff in them. Make the product worth buying instead of downloading.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-06-2004, 05:55 PM:
 
I prefer the convenience of dealing with MP3 and AAC via iTunes and iPod. I still buy CD's occasionally but I buy most of my new music from the Apple iTunes store (AAC Format).

Large-capacity hard drives have come down significantly in price, so I will soon be re-ripping all of my CD's for AAC and a higher (and constant) bit rate. I tried Variable Bit Rate (VBR) but this causes volume shifts from one song to another. A constant bit rate for all songs - especially on the same album - is the way to go.

I toyed with the idea of getting XM for the car but iPod hasn't let me down yet. Only trouble is that it can't expose me to anything I haven't heard so I just might get XM one o' these days.

Having all of my music on a computer has made the music more accessible to me. No more hunting down a CD just to hear one song. No more CDs to put away after playing DJ. Playlists are forever (if you want them to be). I'm listening to more of my music now, too - instead of the same 5 CD's over and over.

On a few songs - mostly classical - I was able to "hear" the compression. I simply re-ripped those till they sounded good. Compressed music via MP3 or AAC sounds just fine to me. I'm not going to get into an argument over this but I can't think of anything I'd be listening to (at home or in the car) that's "too special to be compressed."
 
Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 03-06-2004, 06:35 PM:
 
I agree with Mark: Live and Iīd like to add Loud.

Being an sound engineer I get to see a lot of bands live, and I get to mix some, and when you control it all is when itīs the best, but that is not serving it to me, as much as serving it to others.
Loud within limits of recommendation and what my ears (and amps) can stand...

Other than that my primary source is MP3, which works. My equipment isnīt good enough to make the difference with most qualities of MP3, meaning itīs not the mp3, itīs my sound system that sounds like crap, if and when it does.
CDīs are around, and my portable player is still a CD player, and some of my favourite songs still feels best played on CD.
Some vinyl but that getīs played very rarely...
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2004, 06:40 PM:
 
[av=n]MiniDiscs, because they are easily portable. I can play them in my car or listen to them while I am lying in bed. I prefer to have the music on original CD and then copy the tracks I like to Minidisc. Very rarely is there a CD which I like ALL of the tracks. Also very rare is the CD that is sold in the USA that I like. Most of my music is actually imported from Japan. If I were to get a hard disc music player, it most certainly wouldn't be an iPod. Just because I like Macs doesn't mean I have to like iPods. iPods suck ass. They can't record via a digital input (optical or "coaxial" RCA), they have some messed up some management crap that attempts to arrange stuff whenever it is connected to your computer, and they just look wimpy.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-06-2004, 06:54 PM:
 
CDs. And very ironic that CDs are now regarded as the "gold standard" for music reproduction (SACD etc. are non-starters so far). MP3 and any other format that uses compression can kiss my ass -- I want NOTHING to do with it. [fu] [puke] [thumbsdown]

Anyone know what FM radio stations are using these days? To me it often sounds like they're playing lossy MP3s or something other than CD-quality. [Frown]
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-06-2004, 06:54 PM:
 
Wire recorder for me. [Big Grin] (how many of you have ever seen an audio wire recorder?) I am presently mainly into CD and DAT. I must say, though, that the newer pre-recorded CD's are CRAP! They are recorded WAY too hot, and are very distorted. I have bought several of the SACD hybrids, that have two layers, SACD and CD, so they can be played on a normal CD player (I do not have a SACD player, yet). I am also still using a format that records digital audio as video, onto a VHS tape. Every few years I make a 6 hour long compilation using a mixer, two CD players, turntable, reel to reel deck, and a DAT as sources. I can put one of these 6 hour tapes on while I'm working around the house, and just let it play. I have an FM stereo transmitter being feed by my main system, so that I can tune it in all over the house, and even use a walkman outside.

Every so often I like to go back into my reel to reel tape library and pick out some things that I have not listened to in a long time.

For traveling by air, I was using a portable DAT, using the 90 meter tapes, and the half speed mode I could put 6 hours on a tape, but since 9-11 airport security is not used to seeing these things, and the gell-cell that I brought with it (it drawes a lot of current) would drive the security flakes nuts. So I got a portable MP3 CD player. At a 256K data rate it doesn't sound too bad on a noisy airplane, and I can put 6 hours of audio on a 700 meg disc.

I think that I will always like reel to reel, for the same reason that I like 35MM film; holding a reel of it in your hands, and working with the media itself.

And by the way, I still have a quad 8 track RECORDER somewhere, as well as quad reel to reels, and CD-4 records.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-06-2004, 07:43 PM:
 
I am in a position to listen to music in various formats. The system in use most of the time is CDs and I have a large collection of about 800. I had a lot more but sold them because of the lack of storage space. Part of my CD collection also includes about 20 that are in DTS. The next favorite format I enjoy is DAT. I got into DAT when the format was introduced and have several pre recorded tapes in my collection but most of the ones I play were one's I recorded from CD's. Next is the minidiscs. I love the format because of it's portability. One of the player I have fits nicely in my pocket when I use it at the gym.

With the exception of the minidisc which I always use when I work out, the CD system is the format I use the most when I drive and travel on planes and bus. There would be times when I would also listen to DAT tapes when I travel but the portable player I have is a bit bulky so I usually take my CD player with me. I have a great CD system in my car that sounds wonderful but the only regret I have is the inability to enjoy it during nice long drives because most of my driving is not long distance.

Although I still have most of my long playing record collection which totals almost 2000 and a Thorens TD160 BC MKII with a Shure SME Arm. I do not listen to my Lps anymore.

I do have some music DVDs that are mostly complete operas and symphonic concerts and they sound great in my home theatre in DTS and Dolby 5.1

-Claude
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-06-2004, 07:44 PM:
 
quote:
Anyone know what FM radio stations are using these days? To me it often sounds like they're playing lossy MP3s or something other than CD-quality.
I know of a few stations that are using 320kbps MP3s, but I think the real problem is the compression they use (and have always used) is (now) recompressing an already severely compressed audio source -- today's CDs.

Graph from "Pump up the Volume" Wired 12.01 page 48:

-
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 03-06-2004, 08:45 PM:
 
Usually I just listen to CD's its easiest for me, and I grew up on them! I have an MP3/CD player in my car so I have one CD with 176 MP3s on it that a friend made for me, other then that just the radio or live...going to see John Mayer on March 28th!!! [Smile] He's such a hottie...oh, wrong thread... So sorry.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-06-2004, 08:49 PM:
 
Pretty interesting graph there, Daryl. It's no wonder why AC/DC's "Back in Black" sounds better than any new rock and roll these days.

Of course some engineers have been mixing music too hot for a long time. I grabbed my MFSL Ultradisc II version of "Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon" for the this text in the liner notes:

quote:
Volume Levels
In any digital recording medium there is an absolute limit to the maximum level that can be encoded. Any peak exceeding that level results in distorsion. In the analog to digital conversion process the levels must be set so that the highest peak in the programme is near to, but does not exceed the maximum allowable level.

In a programme with a wide dynamic range, the peaks are higher with respect to the average level, than in one with a lesser dynamic range. Therefore, the average level of a programme with a wide dynamic range must be lower than that of a programme with a narrow dynamic range, in order to avoid distorsion. Limiting the peaks, compressing the overall signal, or allowing the highest peaks to distort, are methods of increasing the average programme levels on a CD of music with wide dynamic range.

None of these methods are acceptable by Mobile Fidelity standards. We believe that the best sonic quality is achieved by encoding material at the required lower level.

The mastering integrity produces the warm, velvety, detailed sonics which, when coupled with 24K gold, result in the ultimate audio experience.
That kind of thing (along with listening carefully to the product) really sold me on those gold Ultradisc releases. The damned things were actually mastered correctly. Too bad you basically had to pay double to get the freaking job done right. But then that has become the American way: make doing the job right a luxury and doing just barely good enough to get by the new standard.
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-06-2004, 09:07 PM:
 
I, like Manny, use iTunes and iPod on a regular basis. If it's a band or artist i really like (Ben Folds for instance [thumbsup] ) I go and buy the cd so I can enjoy the higher quality audio. If its a single from a band I don't have any loyalty to, I'll download it. Im not going to spend the time critically listening to whatever the radio station is pushing right now anyway.

All my cd's pre october '03 are ripped at 320kbps MP3
Post october - 256kbps AAC
Music downloaded legally from iTunes is 128 AAC
My minimum requirement for music obtained from "other sources" [evil] is 256 mp3.

At time of post: 1650 tracks
ripped from:
--49 full legitamate store-bought cd's (keep in mind that I haven't ripped every cd I own)
--59 single tracks legally purchased from iTunes
--11 public domain tracks (useful for non-sync when disney tells us we can't run the 2wenty)
--Remainder obtained from "Other Sources" between 1997 and 2003.

BTW - can anyone else see "stupid javascript" in the upper left, or is that Daryl trying to tell me something about my browser?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2004, 09:34 PM:
 
[av=c]Mike, it's just you. Quit using Safari.

As for me, I am not seeing any garbage text, but I am getting bumped back to the thread each time I try to reply. I had to quickly press the STOP button in order to stay on the page where I am currently typing this in.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-06-2004, 09:47 PM:
 
I like CDs, and have a lot of them. All of my MP3s are done from my CDs at 256 Kbps. Since my MP3s are made primarily for playing on computer speakers at home or work, they're fine for that purpose. They're also made as insurance, so if something happens to my CD collection, I have the MP3s of a lot of the hits in the collection as a backup.

I used 256 Kbps rate on the MP3s since I reextracted some of the files and burned them to an audio CD and compared them with the original CDs, and I can't tell the difference, even on my high-end system, or at least on the kind of music I listen to, I couldn't tell the difference.

The only way I buy music is on CD, since that's most convenient for playing on my home stereo system, my primary listening place.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-06-2004, 10:14 PM:
 
I agree with the "live" answer. For recorded music, I can play the following formats at home:

- vinyl
- CD
- cassette (yuck)
- reel to reel (1/4" half-track and quarter track, 7.5 or 15ips)
- cart (mono only)
- mp3, wav, au,ogg, etc.
- 16mm optical track
- radio (AM and FM)

I'll listen to it if it sounds good. That usually excludes anything that uses lossy compression, though higher bit-rate mp3s are borderline ok for background music and such. Minidisc isn't bad, but I don't quite see the point in this age of affordable CD burners. It made sense at one time as a cart-machine replacment for radio and live theatre (stage) use, but that role is pretty limited now that computer-based systems are taking on that function.

I believe that some radio stations are actually using mp2-compressed files (yes, mp2, not mp3), as some older computer-based automation systems depend on those (and I'm sure that Josh or someone else will correct me if that's wrong).
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-06-2004, 10:18 PM:
 
I'll second the mp2s... seen those in use too.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2004, 10:25 PM:
 
[av=m]MP2's rock.

Scott, you can't listen to AIFF at home? How about AAC? No? IMA 4:1? No? AC3? No? MPC? No? Damn. I'm glad I can. Otherwise I really don't see the point in existing!
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-06-2004, 10:42 PM:
 
If I cared about any of those formats, I probably could.

When I get a machine to play wax cylinders and a 70mm CDS system like Brad's, my life will be complete. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-06-2004, 11:59 PM:
 
I like CDs too. Like Claude, I have a ton of LPs (probably at least 1000) but don't play them.

I probably have about 500 CDs, all legally purchased. I have in my life downloaded (legally or otherwise) exactly one song: "White Dawn," by Alan Parsons, which is not available legitimately anywhere as far as I can tell. It's a live recording from the early '90s that was only released for a limited time in Germany or somewhere.

One of my favorite pastimes is making "compilations" on CD. I don't listen to 'studio' disks much anymore. My "regulation" CDs sit safely at home while my comps ride in my vehicle with me and can be easily replaced if they get scratched.

Have never looked into the legal downloading services but if I ever get my internet connection upgraded, I probably will use them to get the occasional "single," since most of the new artists today can't seem to put a full album of decent material together. But since I am in the music business (at my day job), I will never download trax illegally. I feel guilty enough about the Alan Parsons tune mentioned above.
 
Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 03-07-2004, 03:47 AM:
 
Am I the only one here with a DTS system in my Car?

I have been an avid collector of Quadraphonic material, and for the last couple of years, I have been rolling my own DTS versions of my favorites.

After all, where else are you going to find an origional Quadraphonic version of Pop Corn by HOTT BUTTERED!!!

So Far,
DTS and SONY have only scratched the surface of the extensive library of quad material out there, so I had no other choice but to roll my own!!!

You should see the reactions I get when I put a DTS CD in for unsuspecting passengers.

They really made some fun quad mixes back in the early days.

Personal favorites:

Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Kraftwerk, Guess Who, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Edger Winter Group, The Doors, Creedence Clearwater Revival and too many more to list.

She's come Un Done by The Guess Who
is the one song that always gives the ladies goose pimples.

The mix is so erie it even gives me chills!!! [Eek!]

War Pigs and Money are always a hit with the Guys.

DTS & QUADROPHONIC SOUND TRULY KICKS MAJOR ARSE!!!
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-07-2004, 08:53 AM:
 
DTS in the car !?

That must be a HUUUUUUGE dashboard. What the heck are you driving?

[Wink]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-07-2004, 08:58 AM:
 
Humvee, perhaps? (Hopefully the "real" one, not the H2 disaster that is currently popular.)
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-07-2004, 11:31 AM:
 
Nobody's mentioned Edison cylinders, so I guess I'll have to go with that!! [Razz]

Daryl's display on peak limiting explains a lot of what FM has become. In the '60s, the FCC went on record as intending that FM should be as sonically transparent to the source material as possible. Of course, everything recorded back then was limited to the dynamic range of vinyl or analog tape, so that wasn't saying much, but it was expected to be less compressed than an AM station. The audio processors back then were mostly single band jobs that weren't anywhere near as sophisticated as the processing stuff that's on the market today. The REAL purists were generally the public stations. I saw quite a few college outlets that had NO audio processing at all. One had a Dolby system and broadcast alignment tones to the public once a week.

As FM became more common in cars however, I think the need to overcome ambient sound levels, and the competitive pressures to be the loudest on the dial largely drove the move to reduce dynamic range on FM to the maximum extent technically possible. Even with the budgets available in a market as large as Seattle, some of those stations are pretty hard to listen to for very long.

Now, with the new digital stuff, I imagine the audio display of anything but an NPR station is pretty much a flat bar of digitally chopped and recreated peaks.

The point that David brings up (FM stations sounding like an MP3 player) isn't too far off. The syndicated stations are broadcasting off of audio streams that are compressed to some extent and digitally multiplexed to allow lots of channels on the carrier (kind of like comparing Dish Network to C-band satellites). Compounding this, the internet is allowing for a convenient way to transport commercial content to stations, and some of this is pretty low-level MP3 stuff that's realy noticeable on FM. Finally, the studio-to-tranmsmitter radio links that some stations use are not all "uncompressed", and introduce their own artifacts to the audio stream.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-07-2004, 02:34 PM:
 
Manny, I believe there are standard-size in-dash car/SUV DVD systems that will decode DTS encoded DVD's. Just transfer the 70's analog quadrophonic tracks to the L/R/LS/RS of the DTS audio on a DVD, burn it, and voila! Discrete quad in the car!

-Aaron
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2004, 03:20 PM:
 
Panasonic, Kef Kar and a few others offer car stereo systems featuring DTS decoding. Some of those products have been around for several years.

Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more development in the way of portable surround sound. Many portable boom boxes have detachable speakers. Cars have a natural surround sound environment already built in, with a growing number of them incorporating DVD players and such. With it being 2004 now, I would have figured DD, DTS, DVD-A and SACD products would have been getting into many more portable areas by this point. It is really disappointing with how slow the movement has been.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-07-2004, 04:15 PM:
 
Aaron-

What software encodes in DTS? I don't know of ANY on the consumer level. You could always encode into Dolby Digital, though.[av=k]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2004, 04:29 PM:
 
Minnetonka Audio sells SurCode software DTS encoders, along with encoders for Dolby Digital and MLP:
http://www.surcode.com

Their DTS music CD encoder costs $499. It encodes 5.1 audio into the 1234.8kb/s DTS format that looks like normal PCM audio but is really DTS 5.1.

The DTS DVD encoder costs $1995.

I think one of their biggest selling products is the $299 Dolby Digital 5.1 encoder for Adobe Premiere Pro.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-07-2004, 04:55 PM:
 
Bobby answered it already.

Post deleted
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-07-2004, 05:09 PM:
 
Wow! What great prices for something that can easily be done on the Mac! Sign me up!

I guess DTS is a lost format if the price range is to be so damn high. The CD version should be no more than $99 and the DVD version no more than $199. But I guess DTS doesn't want to become a standard or anything.[av=t]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2004, 08:23 PM:
 
Doesn't Joe look just like Jerry Lewis did back in one of those old Martin And Lewis films..... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-08-2004, 02:15 AM:
 
actually, joe's new picture creeps me out.

my stuff's on vinyl. haven't yet figured out how to download onto it though. i have a total of 2 burnt cd's which friends gave me, but i don't personally have the equipment to play them. or the dvd i own.

carl
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 03-08-2004, 04:15 AM:
 
In order of preference:

Vinyl
SACD, DVD-a
CD
mp3.... [puke]

CD quality is really lousy these days. I really hesitate buying any for fear of the quality... and the fact that the record companies could release it on SACD a month later to take my money two times. The bastards did just that with the new David Bowie album.

Danny
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-08-2004, 12:33 PM:
 
Thank you, Daryl, for posting that graph (back on page one of this thread). That is what I have been bitching about. I bought that Celine Dion CD, and it sounds sooooooo bad, I can't even bring myself to listen to it. I hope the way-over paid management-morons at the record companies read that article (if they can read). This is the reason why I no longer buy CD's
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-08-2004, 01:41 PM:
 
No problem. Although your problem might be that you bought a Celine Dion CD. There is a reason we kicked her out of Canada, you know.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-08-2004, 03:57 PM:
 
And thanks to that she landed here, in a colosseum built for her on top of the rubble of my old theater [puke] Gee, only $80-$205 USD to see her there... [thumbsdown]

Back on subject, mastering mixers in the US must be deaf these days. In some cases I have both Japanese and US versions of the same performance on disc--usually the US version has been remastered to a hotter level. For an FM broadcast station to do that I can understand--they've got to push an intelligible signal over as big an area as they can. But why do that for a home listening medium? I don't get it.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2004, 05:27 PM:
 
quote:
Wow! What great prices for something that can easily be done on the Mac! Sign me up!
I have a feeling the $300 licensing fee for Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding is somehow worked into the $1000 and $500 prices for Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro. It all seems to even out in the end.

There are other competing Dolby Digital 5.1 software encoders on the market for use on Windows PCs, but they all run in the $300 price range. The most common ones are the apps sold by Minnetonka and Sony Pictures Digital (the SPD one can be used as a plug in for Sound Forge, Acid and Vegas stuff).

I agree about the price of the DTS encoders being high. The prices are at least too high for a DTS fan like myself to afford it. $2000 for something that encodes DTS audio for DVD and CD? Sheesh, I can buy the whole Adobe Studio CS collection upgrades and Digital Video Editing collection for that! I guess that price is to balance out the pirates who are trading cracked versions of it on KaZaa and various binaries newsgroups.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-08-2004, 05:34 PM:
 
DVD Studio Pro is only $499. Final Cut Pro does not come with Dolby A-Pack nor do you need FCP to use DVD Studio Pro. So in reality Apple must only be charging $199 for an incredible package like DVD Studio Pro 2, which does more than any other DVD authoring program that I know of.[av=k]
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 01-23-2005, 11:51 PM:
 
Mostly MP3s and CDs have been my main preference for as long as I can remember.

Now the time that has to be set aside to transfer them all to my new ipod mini is going to take me awhile. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2005, 05:05 AM:
 
Speaking of media formats, does anyone have experience with HiMD? I was thinking of getting an iPod, but they are just too damned expensive for my needs, and the iPod mini does not have the capacity for all of my pirated MP3s (I don't pirate it unless it is well above 128kbps). But the HiMD uses MiniDiscs and can play lots and lots of MP3 files, and only costs about $150 or so.

Anyone?
 
Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 01-24-2005, 06:38 AM:
 
Have not had a chance to try the HiMD yet but I'm with Joe on the MD format. MD is the norm over here in Japan and has been for almost two decades. I can take an analog source right into the input of my MD recorder and not have to mess with any computers. You can put five hours of material on one tiny disk and they sure are small. You can use them to compile MP3 files too if you want to go to the trouble. Can't figure out why it never caught on in the US.

Jack is correct about the over compression on the FM band. Whenever I visit there I can't wait to listen to some radio but the ears start to hurt after only twenty minutes or so. It is like a drone on the senses. Even the quiet parts are "loud".

With the radio broadcasters in the US changing over to IBOC digital soon I wonder if they will find a way to mess that up too.

Bill Bunch
Misawa, Japan
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 01-24-2005, 10:28 AM:
 
I went up the Fry's last week and looked up the HiMDs and I was very tempted to get one. It is indeed probably better if you have tons of music and would want to find a better price instead of the other portable media out there. Then again I would probably lose the discs and would be too lazy to carry them around if I had a bunch of them. Yes, they hold around 5 hours per disc which it plenty if you ask me, that would be roughly around 60-70 songs. In comparison to the mini ipod which would be $100 more you get around 1000 songs. If you already have tons of MDs or know how to get a really good deal then go with the HiMD. Assuming that you can get a quantity of 20 discs(1300 songs) for about $32. Under $200 altogether, that's not bad of a deal.

Or the best alternative I had was getting the mini ipod from my cousin as a gift.
 
Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 11-03-2005, 03:51 AM:
 
Is SACD and DVD-A worth investing in? Or is it a format that is not going anywhere?

Can I run SACD/DVD-A in stereo mode and still play back the high quality recording?
 
Posted by Alexander Smith (Member # 1769) on 11-03-2005, 04:12 AM:
 
While at work I like my music played with "old skool" Winamp, from my MP3 folder of 3396 files (15.3Gb). It's convenient for me to take my laptop to work with me most days, and I have a little sat/sub 2 channel amplified speaker set on the make-up bench.

All those MP3s have been ripped from legitimate CDs, because I also think the "legal download" thing is unsustainable. Yes, I agree that itunes has made digital music acessible, but I don't consider it to be "ownership" in the sense of having a CD with the cover art e.t.c.

FWIW the managers here don't seem to mind me listening to music while I work, they seem to be happy enough as long as they can reach me on the internal phone.

Coming back to MP3, most of my music is encoded at 192kbit/sec. I'm okay with the concept of compromise, because if I want that "extra little bit" I can go to the CD at home on the shelf.

I tend to alternate between listening to whole albums, or listening to playlists I've already created (and sometimes change around to keep it interesting). I like to use a cross-fading plugin within WinAMP because those little silent gaps between tracks are annoying. ;-)

Alex.
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 11-03-2005, 07:21 AM:
 
Still mainly listening to Vinyl... sometimes a CD from a collection that that stopped expanding in the late 90's. I think I've bought maybe a hand full of Cd's in the last 7 years.

Though DTS is nice in the theatre!
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-03-2005, 03:55 PM:
 
Paul, with you listening to vinyl, do you have a VPI cleaning machine?

I'm a vinyl, plus an open reeler listener myself.

(...and have a buttload of CD's filled with MP3 files...lol)

..even Winamp has a skin like an open reel machine that I use..

-Monte
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-04-2005, 12:58 AM:
 
I have a 60 Gb Photo and a new 4 Gb Nano ipod and so far have managed to download about 19Gb of music on the larger ipod and 3 Gb on the Nano. I used to listen to many of my classical music cd's on either a portable compact disc or a minidisc player but I was not satisfied with the low volume from the minidisc and the sound from the cd player was ok at best. I also have mini DAT player but stopped using it a long time ago because the device was too balky to carry around. I have found the playback sound quality from the ipods with a Shure E4c headset an awesome way to listen to music on the go.

-Claude
 
Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 11-04-2005, 04:37 AM:
 
Does anyone know the answers to my questions I posted on the bottom of page 3? Encase they were missed here they are again:

Is SACD and DVD-A worth investing in? Or is it a format that is not going anywhere?

Can I run SACD/DVD-A in stereo mode and still play back the high quality recording?
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2005, 12:54 PM:
 
SACD and DVD-A are pretty much stuck in the category of niche formats. You have to really want music from a particular act in that format to justify buying into it at this time.

There is a decent amount of jazz, classical music and classic rock titles on either format. But not much in the way of new, popular music releases.

Most record labels and their performers still record albums just for 2.0 LPCM release. It is very rare you'll find any new album from a popular act being released day and date on both standard CD and DVD-A or SACD.

The new DualDisc format was supposed to help cure some of this nonsense but day and date CD and DualDisc releases are also very rare. DualDiscs can store a standard music CD layer on one side and then DVD-A/V or SACD content on the flipside. So far, very few DualDisc releases have featured DVD-A or SACD content on a second DVD data layer. Nine Inch Nails "With Teeth" is the only disc I have boasting such a thing. To make matters worse, a lot of DualDisc releases just make a DVD version of the 2.0 stereo album on the flipside of the disc. The packaging is often misleading -mainly on the point of whether the DVD version of the album is in DD 5.1 and/or DVD-A 5.1.

The hardware situation also makes things a bit difficult, but the situation is getting better.

You could buy a new DVD player featuring DVD-A and SACD compatibility. But you have to be careful to get a player that can send the DVD-A and SACD content digitally. That will require the DVD player to have either a Firewire 1394 output or a HDMI output.

Likewise, for full digital passthrough of the audio stream, you'll need a receiver or surround controller that can handle the digital bitstream. Some newer receivers do feature Firewire and HDMI signal inputs. Some even feature USB connections as well. The downside is most have way too few of these things when they should have a shitload of HDMI inputs and outputs.

Most older DVD-A and SACD players will send the high res music signals in analog form out of 5.1 analog outputs. That method sucks. You lose a generation of audio quality from the extra digital to analog conversion in the player along with the analog to digital conversion likely to happen in the receiver. DVD players usually have medium to lower quality digital to analog converters, so that kills some of the audio quality right there. It's best to keep the signal in digital form as far through your home theater system as possible.

In the end, most popular music acts are only doing 5.1 material on DVD Video. It's either in the form of music videos or concert videos (or a very narcasistc documentary where they go on about themselves for an hour or so).

Frankly, I don't think I'm missing very much. The majority of music released today is this corporate processed derivate crap. To a large degree, they're still spitting out 1990 style music but forecasting quarterly reports that expect us to buy more of this "I've heard this crap before" garbage.

I was spending a lot of that music CD money on DVD movies. But lately Hollywood has been getting bit just as badly by that repackage and resell the same shit bug too.

It's no wonder why video game sales are such a growth industry.

quote: Paul Trimboli was the last to post
Can I run SACD/DVD-A in stereo mode and still play back the high quality recording?
That's going to depend on what your receiver can do with 5.1 analog input signals -or what a newer one can do with music coming in from a Firewire or HDMI input.

Don't expect much capability from the players themselves. Many don't even feature bass management for DVD-A and SACD (the industry figures if you're going to use either you'll probably have a $15,000 set of full range speakers).
 
Posted by Amanda Jones (Member # 3326) on 11-04-2005, 12:54 PM:
 
I'm not in to all the high tech stuff.

I still like my music via CD, though I'm thinking of getting a sirius radio for my car. I have sirius on my satalite tv and am always listening to it in the house.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-04-2005, 01:58 PM:
 
Problem with, at least with XMRadio, is the frikken "commerical" announcements about every 10 minutes, and then you can hear the same song about three times a week. So you know that they are "looping" their programs one or three times a week.

Don't know about Sirius, but I can see them doing this same programming format.

Not impressed with the satellite radio stations at all.

True, SACD's can sound excellent with the right players and hardware setup-like the "Living Stereo" SACD's, in where these SACD's do have the tracking for conventional 2channel CD playback as well. Some SACD's don't have this adaptability for conventional CD playback.

Still a "4-channel SQ/CD-4" syndrome in this end of the market some - mainly due to popularity an consumer demand since this is an audiophile based area.

-Monte
 
Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 11-06-2005, 11:52 AM:
 
I still use cd's (I have about 300 now) but I am going to be buying an mp3 player this week with Best Buy gift cards that I got for my 30th birthday. I want a hard drive based player so that I can take my whole collection with me but haven't wanted to spend $300 on one. Especially since I will be traveling a lot with my new job, I want to have my whole collection with me.

I agree that ipod's suck. The batteries die after about a year or so according to several other students I asked at school that have one. Not to mention there isn't even an fm tuner built in. I just think that overall there aren't many features.

Anyone got any advice on which mp3 player to buy? I use Windows Media Player and have been slowly putting all my cd's on the computer in anticipation of getting an mp3 player down the road. So it has to be compatible with WMA files, have an fm tuner, hopefully a replaceable battery and a color screen.

Now to vent......I cannot stand satellite radio. It is the biggest rip-off. I took a trip in my mother-in-laws car which had XM for a 8-9 hour drive and ended up switching to regular fm. I was excited to use it too at first and see what it was all about. Unfortunately it still has commercials and the playlists suck! Not to mention I was hoping to get away from listening to DJ's. I can't stand listening to obnoxious DJ's which is a major reason I have over 300 cd's. I dare you to find a radio station that doesn't have a morning show and talk for the majority of the time. I don't want to hear about some dumbass disc jockey's weekend, what's going on in his life, or listen to some retarded guy like Dieter in Cleveland do physical harm to himself for entertainment. Shut the HELL UP and play the music! That IS the purpose of radio you know.

While I am on the subject, what the hell is going on with MTV and VH1?! I like to get up and watch videos while I get ready, but out of four friggin "music video channels" I can't find a single music video on. Stop playing all the Real World episodes and stupid "reality" shows (if you think the producers don't give them things to say and influence the show you are crazy) and put the music videos back on! Okay I feel better now....Sorry, needed to vent.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-06-2005, 01:12 PM:
 
Regarding MTV and VH1, my guess is Viacom thinks everyone has Cox Digital Cable where several different MTV and VH1 channels operate. I have a Dish Network dish. So when I want to watch music videos, which has unfortunately become a more exceedingly rare occaision, I'll turn on the FUSE channel. But even a lot of stuff they play there is boy band pop-flavored punk bullshit.
[Frown]

Satellite radio can be somewhat convenient, particularly if you're driving out in the middle of nowhere. The audio quality isn't great. But it's nice to know what performer is playing the song you're hearing via the data display. I freaking hate all those conventional stations that might play a new song that sounds great but then not say who sang it. You wind up having to call the damned station and ask (provided they have a live DJ on duty).

I have very little need for satellite radio -at least in my vehicle that is. High gas prices have me driving as little as humanly possible. Maybe if XM or Sirius can come up with a receiver that one can attach to a bicycle or just put in your pocket I might consider getting one. For now, I'll just stick with the Sirius radio channels on Dish Network.

Which MP3 player to buy? That's a tough question.

The Creative Labs Zen Mirco was a PC Magazine Editor's Choice winner in small hard disc based players. The 5GB unit was called the value leader in terms of price and features. Their review also gave the unit high marks on audio quality. It's currently the #2 ranked seller behind Apple's iPod Nano White.
PC Magazine review of Zen Micro

Of course there's larger capacity hard disc based players from companies like Creative Labs, iRiver and more.

I'm leaning toward getting a flash-based MP3 player that I can wear while jogging or bike riding. As it stands I haven't seen any players that combined the right set of features, memory capacity, audio quality and price that made me want to make a purchase. For now, such a player will wait down the list of priorities from other items I want to buy -such as a nice, high speed external 500GB hard disc for my notebook computer.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-06-2005, 04:33 PM:
 
One kind of a niftly little MP3 player is the one that you load up a thumbdrive (a 512mg is the best) of Mp3's, then plug the thumbdrive in an FM transmitter device that itself plugs into the cigarette lighter socket to power the device.

Then, you select a transmitting frequency on the device, then tune in the FM radio on this frequency (which is usually below 89.1mHz) and you've got easy 6 hrs of nonstop music through the car radio that doesn't sound too bad at all.

Only trick to watch out for this is not have your Mp3's loaded under a directory of any sort, just the files themselves. You also might have to arrange the files on the computer first (just the first character) on how you want them since the device plays the files in an "alphanumeric" order (e.g. "zero through nine", then "a to z")

Works pretty slick.

-Monte
 
Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-06-2005, 04:55 PM:
 
I got into the ipod craze myself. I prefer 192Kbps. Anything below that and I start to notice the distortion to the point of it being annoying. 128 is really bad when you listen to it after getting used to 192.
 
Posted by Mark Lippert (Member # 2573) on 11-08-2005, 05:41 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe if XM or Sirius can come up with a receiver that one can attach to a bicycle or just put in your pocket I might consider getting one.
Bobby, such a thing does exist. Here's one of them.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-08-2005, 06:20 PM:
 
Starting Nov 15th, DirecTV is dumping the "Music Choice" channels and going over to "XM".

Yea! FINALLY some great choices to listen to at home.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2