A broadcaster friend tells me that audio component sales have dropped, victim certainly of the mp3 tsunami, it's just so convenient to place the whole farm on a portable device. Rock/house sounds fine this way (I mean, who cares?), but crafted music is utterly not listenable in that format. I transfer my digital files from LP and tape to lossless. With memory so inexpensive today, why not? One can always reduce for convenience, but keep the hi-fidelity transfer close to the original (digital never quite reaches analog). Perhaps it will become newly-attractive eventually to reproduce actual sound in future (both studio and performance), but I fear that those of us who lived the audiophile era might be alone in its desire. Today, compression is king, regardless of clothes..
--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Richard P. <[email protected]> wrote: From: Richard P. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Audio Quality (was: [CGUYS] Audacity) To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 10:58 AM I wholeheartedly agree with both posts on audio quality or lack thereof. When I recently went looking for a set of speakers for my computer, I was shocked to see powered speakers at 10% total harmonic distortion. Many Internet sites don't even bother posting the THD for their products. The worst offender I've heard for lack of audio quality is the top rated local FM radio station (WTOP). Their studio audio is superb but the low bandwidth audio which is used for recorded/edited stories is atrocious. When the weather report comes on, sometimes it is so bad I have to turn the radio all the way down until the report is over. It sounds like someone trying to talk under water while chewing marbles in their mouths. Ditto for the sports reporting, and the problem has started showing up in the national broadcasters reports. It really is a shame that the audio quality has degenerated so drastically in the public mainstream. Unfortunately I don't see anything being done about it due the "the cost effectiveness" of crappy audio. Richard P. >> It's unfortunate that the standard of audio reproduction is now the built >> in speakers on a laptop or the earbuds on the rack at Walmart. > > It's far from any kind of standard. It's mass market crap. Riley, > most people don't know any better. > > I doubt you could make a case that 45 rpm singles and most pop > LPs, CDs etc. played on crappy equipment sounded anything > better than an MP3. > > I think most people today have not heard enough live music > to have a standard of comparison, and I'm not talking about > rock concerts in sports arenas not designed for music here. > > There are inevitable compromises in attempting to reproduce > music as I'm sure you'll agree. But some methods are better > than others, as you know. > > I like your approach, it seems reasonable to me. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
