Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
aca

Am I an asshole if... [compressed music quality]

Recommended Posts

I demand people turn off shitty quality digital music they're playing. Now, I'm no audiofaggot who wont listen to anything lower than 320kbps Ogg Vorbis FLAC h.264 bullshit, but come on, who really can listen to anything under 128kbps and why would you want too? It completely ruins the song and just gives me a headache.

This has happened to me twice driving with other people listening to their ipod. Both times I was told by multiple people in the car that there really was no difference and I'm just a snob. I beat even Helen Keller could make the difference between a 48kbps and 128kbps. What do you guys think

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that anything below 128kbps is unlistenable. If I happen to find a song or album that is encoded lower, I tend to not listen to it or get rid of it. It has that tinny, digital sound that just detracts from the overall experience.

Anything above 128kb, though, I can't honestly say I can really tell the difference. Anyone who claims they can is definitely a snob. Or, I've just destroyed my ears enough by loud music and playing in bands that my hearing is impaired enough to not be able to tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post

With some kinds of music (eg. classical) I can her the difference between 320 and 128. The way most people have their stereos set I'm not surprised they're willing to settle for 48 kbps encoding. They obviously can't hear their music anyway. Whem my brother plays music in his car all you can hear is bass and screaming. bleh

I think I have one or two songs encoded at 64k. Can't find anything better for those ones. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

Anything above 128kb, though, I can't honestly say I can really tell the difference. Anyone who claims they can is definitely a snob.

Having good ears is being a snob?

Share this post


Link to post

I prefer 160 kbps or more, as 128 is tolerable but relatively crappy.

Share this post


Link to post

192 CBR is fine by me, though I get 320 or some quality VBR whenever I can.

I'm afraid that if you can't hear the difference between 128 and >192 then you've got hearing problems. To me it's easily noticable in rock, metal, even in techno the bass just isn't the same.

That said, some internet radio streams I've listened to had surprisingly good quality at 96.

Share this post


Link to post

i dont really care. i havent come across much music below 128kbps myself, but when i do, i can live with it.
anything above 180kbps sounds great, but just takes up too much storage space for me :S

Share this post


Link to post

fuck that I couldn't care less about the quality. I prefer live tracks over recording studio ones. Even if they are awfully raspy and record parts of them before they are even ready to start playing and all you hear is fuzz.

Share this post


Link to post
40oz said:

fuck that I couldn't care less about the quality. I prefer live tracks over recording studio ones. Even if they are awfully raspy and record parts of them before they are even ready to start playing and all you hear is fuzz.

That's not what this thread is about.
It's about the digital compression after the recording, I think live stuff tend to be affected by it the most.

Personally I used to be one of the people that argued that 128kbps is enough, but I really prefer 256+ these days. Depends on the encoder as well I think.

Share this post


Link to post

No, this thread is about an asshole who doesn't want other people listening to music if the quality isn't high enough.

Share this post


Link to post

Eh, I do 160 variable with the latest Lame, and it's virtually transparent. A lot of people just use shitty encoders. I agree that low quality music sounds bad, but 128 and above with most of the latest encoders is just fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Most people listen to shitty music, so logically it should sound like shit as well, right? Right? RIGHT?!


...Nobody loves me. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah I'd say 128 is the minimum low. I usually encode in 192 myself.

AgentSpork said:

...Nobody loves me. :(

Don't you have a girlfriend that looks like candy?

Share this post


Link to post
aca said:

I beat even Helen Keller

glorious victory!

ontopic: i don't hear the difference above 192, so i'm content with that. 320 is a waste of my precious rare disk space.

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

Anything above 128kb, though, I can't honestly say I can really tell the difference. Anyone who claims they can is definitely a snob.


You are deaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Philnemba said:

In my opinion music is music, I could really care less if digital audio quality sucks :P

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNGGGNNNNNHHHHHHHH

Share this post


Link to post

I can notice a difference if I listen to a 128k and a 320k track back to back, and I try to find higher fidelity if I can. Alot of my favorite albums I've only ever experienced in MP3 of varying bitrates between those so it's not really a deal breaker for me. I don't care for FLAC/WAV, the amount of storage space taken up by the files is not worth the gain in quality.

Hearing music out of cheap tinny crap speakers, especially at a distance or imbalanced left/right gives me a splitting headache. I make people turn music off when that happens, but that's more a health and personal welfare thing than through any concerns about not being a sound "purist".

I am no audiofag, but goddamn I rage when I see someone listening to an iPod with the shitty original white plastic earphones. Why the hell would you spend hundreds of dollars on an MP3 player then listen to it through a shitty set of $5 earphones? Fuckheads.

Share this post


Link to post

Except they charge like $20 a pop for those fucking headphones

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

Except they charge like $20 a pop for those fucking headphones

I know, and that makes me rage even more.

I use Sony EX-51 earbuds, they retail for $90 in Sony stores but you can get them on eBay for like $25 shipped.

I've tried every earbud I could get my hands on (including big audio brands like Shure and Senn) and these are by far the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

Why the hell would you spend hundreds of dollars on an MP3 player then listen to it through a shitty set of $5 earphones? Fuckbread.

They're comfy.

Share this post


Link to post
DuckReconMajor said:

They're comfy.

No. Wear some proper rubber earbuds for a while then try to back to the hard plastic rubbish. Ear pain ahoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

I use Sony EX-51 earbuds, they retail for $90 in Sony stores but you can get them on eBay for like $25 shipped.

Share this post


Link to post

lol $90 f that

Seriously, though, I'm not going to buy expensive headphones because I'm probably as casual as listeners go. I listen to the radio on the way to school and that's about it. I've used my iPod maybe 3 times in the last year or so.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×