<< I contend that you are wrong. >> why you.... i oughta..... no, i might be. but you might be as well. who can tell? << Go to a high end stereo/speaker shop and bring in the same album in a compressed and uncompressed format. I guarantee the people working there (if their worth their salt) will be able to tell the difference. >> or at least, they will SAY they can. like i am going to trust thoe people, who have a vested interest in me agreeing with their statements and thus shellign out for expensive audio gear.... << Same with vinyl and CD......people *can* tell the difference. The range of frequencies the you get with vinyl is greater than CD. >> and i contend that the range of frequency difference is nothign we cna hear, and that rather the difference has to do with the quality of the hardware. here is a comment: music folk do this all the time -- analog v. digital sound. film people NEVER do. you never hear anyone slam DVD as degrading the quality of celluloid film. why is that? << Like I said before, I'm no sonic expert or I would throw in a bunch of numbers to prove this..... >> heh. touche! << I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here? Playback? I'm talking about the wave form, not what it's played on. >> a waveform by itself is meaningless -- it is only when it is fed through hardware that you get sound, and therefore meaning. the hardware is as important, if not moreso, than the medium. << I don't own an mp3 player (well, I have winamp on my computer) so I'm not sure what the differences are between companies or if one company makes an mp3 player that sounds better than another. >> do you have a DVD player? many ll DVD players made in the past 3 years will also play MP3 CDs. << Again, some people use and love mp3. It is great for storing large amounts of audio to carry around. It's convenient. However, I don't like lossy formats and try not to use them whenever possible. That's just me, though. It's my opinion... and you know the saying about opinions.... >> fair enough. << FWIW, nobody on my planet likes mp3s....... >> i knew it.... PJK please don't hate me because i can't type..... --- All the cool kids are doing it: HTTP://www.EvilSponge.org
<< Go to a high end stereo/speaker shop and bring in the same album in a compressed and uncompressed format. I guarantee the people working there (if their worth their salt) will be able to tell the difference. >>
very true. After spending an hour in a hi-fi speaker room armed with Dead Can Dance and Orb, I noticed a great difference in sound from one pair of speakers to another. After going with Paradigm Monitor 5.1 speakers bi-wired to my Onkyo 100w amp, everything sounds better. Opposite with MP3s now for they sound worse... It's all opinion really. Like eyesight, some people have diffeent hearing ability than others. There's no contacts or glasses to compensate until you get to extreme cases where hearing devices come in, but those only amplify, not clarify. As for DVD picture quality, I read an interview with Neil Young about his Greendale release, and how he wanted to do a DVD, but complained that a compromise is involved - you can have either superb video quality or superb audio quality, but not both. I can see flaws in DVDs that make them look cheap - gradiation lines in shadowing of skin tones, the way smoke dissipates in the air looks like bunches of tiny squares, and in really dark scenes there is little black definition. Forget watching soccer on sattellite tv too, the players and cameras move, but the field stays solid... Why couldn't they just use the same format as laser disc? Gavin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Hmm, didn't know about the audio/video quality compromise. I guess that's why theres those superbit versions of some films, like Desperado something that really bugged me about watching the Sopranos on DVD, Tony is wearing thin diagonal striped shirts (I think) a bunch & you can really notice a blurryness or something, whatever it is you can tell it looks really artificial. -----Original Message----- As for DVD picture quality, I read an interview with Neil Young about his Greendale release, and how he wanted to do a DVD, but complained that a compromise is involved - you can have either superb video quality or superb audio quality, but not both. I can see flaws in DVDs that make them look cheap - gradiation lines in shadowing of skin tones, the way smoke dissipates in the air looks like bunches of tiny squares, and in really dark scenes there is little black definition. Forget watching soccer on sattellite tv too, the players and cameras move, but the field stays solid... Why couldn't they just use the same format as laser disc? Gavin
participants (3)
-
Ant Bryan -
Gavin Miller -
P J Kane