MP3s VS CDs

Dude, don't call me dude, stupid twatbitch. Taken out of context sure I did, you fuckingtwatskankassbitchwhorefaggot.

Originally posted by Me:
I say 320 kbps is equal to CD. I can't tell the difference

Click to expand...

Are you going to grow up to be a reporter or something? READ THE WHOLE FUCKING THING YOU STUPID FUCKING TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL. You represent everything I hate about people.

Sorry, I get worked up when people accuse me of things, anything, even if it's something good.

can anyone in here actually tell the difference between a 320k mp3 and a cd to start with?

and if so WHY CD's?
Why not the original un-fucked with analog (as digital is not "pure" in any sense) such as the good ol LP?

I can tell with some, but certainly not most, of my music. I do have some vinyl, but I don't listen to it much as my turntable and receiver are pieces of shit and need replacing.

and if so WHY CD's
Why not the original un-fucked with analog (as digital is not "pure" in any sense) such as the good ol LP?

Click to expand...

Because of the practical implications of vinyl and the fact that a lot of music is digital in origin anyway. Digital is pure, that's the point. It's quantized, which is what makes it horrible.

With a good set of headphones I can tell a 320kbps MP3 from a CD. I tried it in a blind test, listening to the MP3 and the CD in sequence, and then hitting a button to mark which I thought was which. I was right about 7/10 times. But yeah, for general indoor listening on normal equipment, 320kbps is just fine.

how is DIGITAL PURE?

If nyone will reacall, most recording industries (at least they used to) use reel-to-reel at a very high speed to record the music - in analog.

Take and old LP of PinkFloyd's the wall, or Santana, and compare it with the "Digitally remastered" version - I can't listen to it. Its horrable.... The entire feel of the music is gone. It just isn't the same. And as someone else mentioned before - break out the o-scope and you will see the difference. Digital kills the sound, hell thats why tube amplifiers are making a come back, they seem to restore part of what digital leaves out.

for stupid stuff that I listen to all day mp3 (or simmilar) will do fine, but when it comes time that I want to "experience" the music, Analog.. but only with a good analog reciever...

You're missing the point. I'm was correcting your terminology.

A digital signal is entirely pure - it will always sound the same as the original digital signal under any circumstance. If you send a binary number digitally, it will always be the same number when it reaches the other end. That's what pure means. Certainly it won't be the same as the input if it's an analogue source, but that's a seperate issue.

What you're trying to say about analogue is that it is continuous, rather than discrete. Like I said, a digital signal is quantized, so there are jumps between samples and such. That's why a lot of people prefer analogue, including myself (but it's not practical, like I said). Analogue isn't as pure, as it is theoretically impossible to get it to produce the same output twice due to the methods required in 'reading' the signal e.g. a needle reading vinyl won't produce the same results due to a host of physical variations and the destructive nature of the needle itself.

Not my diagram, but this is relevant:



Please don't correct people when they're right, this is something I'm interested in to a great depth, and it's insulting when you declare me wrong when I am not.

Yeah, Waz knows a lot on this subject, you can't step to this. Biznatch.

And you know exactly what I meant when I said it was't a pure signal. So you can stop taking what people say too literally

A spade is a spade. Pure is pure. This conversation was educational and not at all pointless. Perhaps next time you talk about the advantages of an analogue recording you'll use the word "natural" instead of pure.

ok, so "natural" it is