Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Pfft. As if we needed yet another reason to hate Apple   ( npr.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, aspect ratio, frisbee, recording engineers, audio file format, banner ads, network connections, digital formats, Nielsen SoundScan  
•       •       •

17677 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Mar 2012 at 1:03 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-06 08:51:01 AM  
Oh no! Apple is making something that people are actually using work a little better! Those bastards!

On a related note, the car companies suck for making better land vehicles when we really want flying cars.
 
2012-03-06 08:56:39 AM  
highlighted the link saw "mastered for itunes" in the link...lemme guess, we're talking about crappy compression?

/rip it all in FLAC, or my Sonos gets all vomity. Well, my ears do anyway.
//have MP3 files at 320 for portable use, that's the lowest I'm willing to go.
 
2012-03-06 08:57:29 AM  
Most music being made today is just teen pop, disposable frivolous entertainment. It is no matter that it sounds like crap. In fact, this has been true through most of the recorded era. Audiophiles have always been a niche market, and music catering to us will always be in a different format than what the kids are consuming. Nothing to see here, move along.
 
2012-03-06 08:59:32 AM  

GameSprocket: Oh no! Apple is making something that people are actually using work a little better!


This has been linked multiple times in this very thread, but for the hard of reading: If you imagine your ears are superhuman and demand only the best in bitrates, you're a sucker, primed for the plucking.

or an iConsumer, which is exactly the same thing but slightly less discerning...
 
2012-03-06 09:01:32 AM  

Donnchadha: Well, if you were using properly $300 GOLD shielded Monster cables to attach your iPod to your stereo, you wouldn't have these problems.


Much better
 
2012-03-06 09:04:00 AM  

UnspokenVoice

I seem to recall a study having been done and posted here on Fark not that many moons ago. I don't recall the details but the results where similar to what I posted (IIRC) and still people argued with the science. It was a lot of, "I don't care what the science says, I know I can hear the difference."

probably the same group that swears they feel better after visiting the chiropractor and that the toothless dowser they hired drilled-ed them a workin' well the first go 'round.
 
2012-03-06 09:07:32 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: GameSprocket: Oh no! Apple is making something that people are actually using work a little better!

This has been linked multiple times in this very thread, but for the hard of reading: If you imagine your ears are superhuman and demand only the best in bitrates, you're a sucker, primed for the plucking.

or an iConsumer, which is exactly the same thing but slightly less discerning...


So, are you saying that providing a slightly higher quality as a differentiation is a stupid idea? Back in your day MP3s made your ears bleed and you liked it just fine?

It is shocking that a commercial company would do something to entice buyers.
 
2012-03-06 09:13:04 AM  
I don't know how I feel about every product launch require psychosocial analysis now.
 
2012-03-06 09:15:10 AM  

loudog: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


excellent read, thanks! i have been switching to FLAC now that i can afford storage for my large collection of music.
 
2012-03-06 09:20:48 AM  

RaceBoatDriver: Wattgate 381 Audio Grade Duplex Receptacle


Holy crap, those are real.

Amazon (new window)

Enjoyed the comments.
 
2012-03-06 09:57:00 AM  
Luckily for me, my hearing is shiate, so 128kbps MP3s are just fine and dandy.
 
2012-03-06 09:57:50 AM  

archichris: God I hate that farking article!

I skimmed it looking for the point and every time my eyes stopped it was on boring techno-drivel.

How much do I not want to sit next to this guy at a party? It would be worse than sitting next to a career public housing administrator and hearing about the way federal funds are allocated.

Just tell me what apple did that was so bad in the first paragraph and let me decide how interested I am in knowing all the details.


Agreed. The article was the most boring thing I've read in weeks.
 
2012-03-06 10:02:37 AM  

GameSprocket: So, are you saying that providing a slightly higher quality as a differentiation is a stupid idea? Back in your day MP3s made your ears bleed and you liked it just fine?


Are you averse to reading lots of words interspersed with graphs or are you making a point so subtle it is beyond the ken of mortal man?

I ask in the spirit of scientific enquiry.
 
2012-03-06 10:07:32 AM  
taurusowner:

"Honestly, I've never really been able to hear why mp3s are considered "bad". Granted I'm in the Army, and I marched/taught drumlines for about 9 years, so even with earplugs, I doubt I have the best hearing. But to me a downloaded mp3 at 128 bitrate and such sounds pretty fine to me. I guess I'm not an "audiophile"/snob. Oh well."

I've done numerous ABX tests with myself and several others as test subjects to try to discern the difference, and in my experience when the test subjects don't know which they're listening to, it's extremely difficult to detect much if any difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a wav or flac rip of a CD, even on a very good stereo system. It depends on how "audiophile" the original recording was to begin with, and even with an exceptional recording, the difference is very minimal, as long as the MP3 is properly ripped at 320kbps with a good codec. (I prefer LAME.) When there is a difference between the MP3 & wav or original CD, it's subtle and difficult to define just what that difference is.

In case you're wondering which recordings I used for these ABX tests, some of them are:

Donald Fagen - "The Nightfly" (MFSL CD and MFSL LP)
Supertramp - "Breakfast In America" (MFSL CD, MFSL LP, & Japanese A&M Audiophile LP)
Janis Ian - "Breaking Silence" (CD)
Steely Dan - "Aja" (CD, original ABC LP, Cisco Audiophile LP)
Beck - "Sea Change" (MFSL CD)
Diana Krall - "The Look Of Love" (CD)
Muddy Waters - "Folk Singer" (Chess Audiophile LP reissue)

Gear: (different stuff used at different times)
Technics SP25 turntable/Audioquest PT9 arm/Ortofon OM30 Super cartridge
Thorens TD150 turntable/Linn Ittok tonearm/Ortofon OM30 Super cartridge
Nakamichi OMS5AII CD player
Sony ES CD player
McIntosh amp
Marantz 510 amp
Yamaha CX830 preamp
Bang & Olufsen MC120.2 speakers or Polk Monitor 10B speakers
Dayton Titanic powered sub
Windows 7 PC with Edirol/Roland USB audio interface

Granted, it's not the most expensive equipment in the world, but it's good enough to resolve any major differences. I rip the majority of my music at 320kbps & reserve FLAC for the real "audiophile" stuff.
 
2012-03-06 10:16:26 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: GameSprocket: So, are you saying that providing a slightly higher quality as a differentiation is a stupid idea? Back in your day MP3s made your ears bleed and you liked it just fine?

Are you averse to reading lots of words interspersed with graphs or are you making a point so subtle it is beyond the ken of mortal man?

I ask in the spirit of scientific enquiry.


I thoroughly enjoyed the lined article. Collecting irrelevant data is an under-appreciated hobby.

Why are you still trying to tie sound theory to a business decision? Apple is competing against streaming services and other MP3 vendors, why wouldn't they find a way to differentiate themselves?

Since you don't seem willing to accept a pure marketing answer, how about the fact that "remaster" is not the same as "reencoding"?

Creating iTunes-specific masters for Rush's albums required a more nuanced approach than just boosting the bass. "The delicate mix balances of a Rush album dictated that I could only 'nudge' the bottom, not really boost it," VanDette explained. "For iTunes mastering I focused on making up for the losses created by the iTunes AAC algorithm. Generally, I heard changes in level, bottom, top, punch, and imaging." (new window)
 
2012-03-06 10:25:28 AM  
Is this the thread where poor people moan about how they don't even WANT things they can't afford and how their dollar store MP5Pods are superior to Apple's product?
 
2012-03-06 10:25:50 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Luckily for me, my hearing is shiate, so 128kbps MP3s are just fine and dandy.


Same reason I still watch my circa 1987 TV. My eyes are no longer hi def.
 
2012-03-06 10:29:34 AM  
Or is this the thread where people claim to hear the difference between 320kpbs mp3 and CDs, and prefer the sound of a worn out, hissy, yowling 33 rpm record?
 
2012-03-06 10:29:52 AM  

GameSprocket: Collecting irrelevant data is an under-appreciated hobby.

Ahh.. So it genuinely is a comprehension thing.

The more that pseudoscience goes unchecked in the world at large, the harder it is for truth to overcome truthiness... even if this is a small and relatively insignificant example.

You keep telling them, Bill one day... one day they'll get the point and cull themselves.
 
2012-03-06 10:33:32 AM  

gozar_the_destroyer: modern amplification circuits (mainly the saturation levels of the transistors within them) can handle the fuller sound levels without distortion. Older parts, even as recently as 1992, had problems with high source volumes pushing the transistors into saturation (92' I know for a fact because I have a pioneer amp from that time) and cutting off the peaks of the waveforms.


True, but that's not relevant to why CD masters have a lot more compression on them now than they did 20 or 30 years ago.

Listeners equate "louder" with "sounds better", and the recording industry has been giving them what they want.
 
2012-03-06 10:43:48 AM  

GameSprocket: nulluspixiusdemonica: GameSprocket: So, are you saying that providing a slightly higher quality as a differentiation is a stupid idea? Back in your day MP3s made your ears bleed and you liked it just fine?

Are you averse to reading lots of words interspersed with graphs or are you making a point so subtle it is beyond the ken of mortal man?

I ask in the spirit of scientific enquiry.

I thoroughly enjoyed the lined article. Collecting irrelevant data is an under-appreciated hobby.

Why are you still trying to tie sound theory to a business decision? Apple is competing against streaming services and other MP3 vendors, why wouldn't they find a way to differentiate themselves?

Since you don't seem willing to accept a pure marketing answer, how about the fact that "remaster" is not the same as "reencoding"?

Creating iTunes-specific masters for Rush's albums required a more nuanced approach than just boosting the bass. "The delicate mix balances of a Rush album dictated that I could only 'nudge' the bottom, not really boost it," VanDette explained. "For iTunes mastering I focused on making up for the losses created by the iTunes AAC algorithm. Generally, I heard changes in level, bottom, top, punch, and imaging." (new window)


I wonder if he has any fix for Vapor Trails that doesn't boil down to "re-record the damn thing properly you idiots!". :(
 
2012-03-06 10:44:58 AM  
Anybody else digging 24 bit vinyl rips? It's honestly the best way I've ever heard Born to Run (might be due to it being a compressed recording in the first place.
 
2012-03-06 10:46:36 AM  

uncoveror: Most music being made today is just teen pop, disposable frivolous entertainment. It is no matter that it sounds like crap. In fact, this has been true through most of the recorded era. Audiophiles have always been a niche market, and music catering to us will always be in a different format than what the kids are consuming. Nothing to see here, move along.


Seriously. Throughout the history of vinyl, I bet most of the music produced during that era was listened to through single speaker transister radios. Now, I assume most of today's music is probably listened through Apple's default ear buds.
 
2012-03-06 10:47:41 AM  

Kar98: Is this the thread where poor people moan about how they don't even WANT things they can't afford and how their dollar store MP5Pods are superior to Apple's product?


No, this is the thread where people mentally replace "remaster" with "re-encode" and then claim that a company shouldn't be marketing something that the Fark technical committee doesn't think provides additional value.
 
2012-03-06 10:51:00 AM  
Sometimes I am surprised at how much we care about visual/audio quality. Maybe I'm just getting old.

I still don't mind watching movies on video cassette (on a big screen CRT projector no less). Or using one of these to listen to music:

www.ecarruthers.com

Don't get me wrong, I love it when the picture/sound is high def. I just don't care enough to go out of my way to have it.
 
2012-03-06 11:16:16 AM  

gozar_the_destroyer: The reason for upping the source volume in recordings now is because modern amplification circuits (mainly the saturation levels of the transistors within them) can handle the fuller sound levels without distortion. Older parts, even as recently as 1992, had problems with high source volumes pushing the transistors into saturation (92' I know for a fact because I have a pioneer amp from that time) and cutting off the peaks of the waveforms.


Also, it is my understanding that those older recordings were quieter because they were mastered around the physical limitations of vinyl records (new window). There are certain frequencies and volume levels that CD can handle but vinyl runs into problems like the needle jumping out of the groove if the bass is too deep.

upload.wikimedia.org

I have to wonder if what this really shows is engineers originally having only a limited dynamic range to work with because they were mastering for vinyl (and those masters being transferred directly to CD), and over the years remastering those tracks for the better technology that can handle a wider dynamic range without falling on its face.
 
2012-03-06 11:30:46 AM  

gaspode: FTA "Even so, the slightly compressed digital files on CDs are called "lossless" files because you can still take the quality down another step and have something most people enjoy listening to."

No that is not why they are called lossless. They are called lossless because the compression algorithms used are not lossy, in that when uncompressed they return all the data present before the compression took place.


CDs are lossy, compared to the original analog or higher sample rate/bit depth recording, which is what the article was getting at. Sorry, you're wrong...

If this is not the case they should not be called lossless. This has nothing to do with bitrates or anything else the article talks about, but does indicate the complete lack of knowledge of the author, and cautions against assuming anything else he writes is correct.

... which means I guess we shouldn't assume anything else you write is correct.

/including that sentence... but wait, that means-
 
2012-03-06 11:53:00 AM  

doglover: NOBODY CARES


Yes, people do care. Soon enough they will not. I made sure my 3 children learned to play musical instruments. I wanted them to hear actual musical notes, and not the bland excrement of digital music. There was a reason Neil Young kept his music from being digitized for so long. Finally, he became broke enough to allow it.
 
2012-03-06 12:51:22 PM  
People in this thread were not alive and using MP3 players when they first came out.
I remember, to cram as much as I could on my 256 MB MP3 player that I would compress my music before putting it on. That way, I could get more music on there.
In my shiatty headphones it made no difference, but as soon as I plugged it into my shiatty stereo the difference was astounding. So much so that I ended up varying the compression based on the song...the more complex the song, the less compressed I made it before I put it on the player.

I wasn't an audiophile. I didn't understand the maths. I was only 12 for farks sake. I just knew it sounded like shiat when I compressed it.

Anyone who thinks compressed music sounds the same as uncompressed is a retard who has never heard overly compressed music.
 
2012-03-06 12:53:20 PM  
"it would be like if you were a writer and you were told that you would have to re-edit your book for the dimwitted or the dyslexic"

Or design an OS for the mentally challenged

Theaetetus: gaspode: FTA "Even so, the slightly compressed digital files on CDs are called "lossless" files because you can still take the quality down another step and have something most people enjoy listening to."

No that is not why they are called lossless. They are called lossless because the compression algorithms used are not lossy, in that when uncompressed they return all the data present before the compression took place.

CDs are lossy, compared to the original analog or higher sample rate/bit depth recording, which is what the article was getting at. Sorry, you're wrong...

If this is not the case they should not be called lossless. This has nothing to do with bitrates or anything else the article talks about, but does indicate the complete lack of knowledge of the author, and cautions against assuming anything else he writes is correct.

... which means I guess we shouldn't assume anything else you write is correct.

/including that sentence... but wait, that means-


Everything is theoretically lossy (yes, even vinyl, DAT, a microphone and every other analogue bit of kit you want to rant about, even your ears) except for a lossless digital copying method which is able to copy all the data present in a digital recording without any *extra* distortion or loss.
 
2012-03-06 01:03:19 PM  

Theaetetus: CDs are lossy, compared to the original analog or higher sample rate/bit depth recording, which is what the article was getting at. Sorry, you're wrong...


People are mixing up different terms for "lossy audio".

Any sonic waveform that goes through the analog-to-digital (A/D) process is going to lose some of its fidelity. You're taking a waveform with a nearly infinite number of amplitude levels and points in time and converting it to a digital representation that has a fixed number of both. The lower the bit depth and sample frequency, the less fidelity that digital sample will be able to represent. That would be "lossy" due to resolution limitations.

Then you have compression losses. A lossless compression codec is named as such because the output from a decoder is identical to the input of an encoder. It simply looks for a more efficient way to represent the data without changing such data. A lossy compression codec is named because the output from a decoder does not match the input of an encoder. It looks for a more efficient way to represent the data by changing the data itself. That would be "lossy" due to suppressing data according a psycho acoustic model.

People say that CDs are lossless because you can take the bitstream output from the decoder and feed it to another CD recorder and the duplicate would be identical. Same with a DAT player. The same cannot be said with Minidisc or DVD-V which both use lossy compression audio codecs. Each trip through the encode/decode path will result in a change.
 
2012-03-06 01:18:49 PM  
It's debates like this which are the genesis for low-fi music.


/off to shoot my bands new youtube video on a PXL-2000 (new window)
 
2012-03-06 01:36:04 PM  
i555.photobucket.com


This is a fun disc to use to illustrate different compression formats.
(new window)

Of course, low-fi has its brilliant moments as well.

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2012-03-06 01:45:59 PM  
Why is this even a battle? I know that folks think it's hip to bash iStuff and that iOwners seem to project this almost zealous defense of their product choices, but fighting over compression? Really? If it matters, then spend the money on it. If it doesn't, don't.

If I'm sitting still, doing nothing but mindful listening to what's coming in through the headphones, then sound quality matters. I'm trying to think of the last time I did that. I play music while I'm working, or exercising, or just as background noise while I'm going about my day. In that case it doesn't really matter that much--my focus is not on the hyperquality of each distinct note, but on test code, or assembling dinner, or on making just one more interval in my run. In either case, it's certainly not worth the stress investment some folks seem to have in it.


/Save your arguments for what really matters in life
//Like which single malt has the most nuanced flavor profile... :)
 
2012-03-06 01:49:49 PM  

praxcelis: /Save your arguments for what really matters in life
//Like which single malt has the most nuanced flavor profile... :)



I find that a task that is much enhanced by hi-fi sound, and a comfy listening chair.
 
2012-03-06 02:16:49 PM  

praxcelis: /Save your arguments for what really matters in life
//Like which single malt has the most nuanced flavor profile... :)


But if people don't practice with the small stuff, we won't be prepared to argue over the important matters, not really. It is, ideally, a rehearsal.

Kraftwerk Orange: I find that a task that is much enhanced by hi-fi sound, and a comfy listening chair.


Heh-- you made him say "comfy [...] chair."
 
2012-03-06 02:17:49 PM  

Dinjiin: Theaetetus: CDs are lossy, compared to the original analog or higher sample rate/bit depth recording, which is what the article was getting at. Sorry, you're wrong...

People are mixing up different terms for "lossy audio".

... People say that CDs are lossless because you can take the bitstream output from the decoder and feed it to another CD recorder and the duplicate would be identical. Same with a DAT player. The same cannot be said with Minidisc or DVD-V which both use lossy compression audio codecs.


Likewise, you're mixing up different terms for lossy audio. CDs and DATs are not compressed, even via a lossless compression codec. They are 16-bit PCM bitstreams. Similarly, AIFF and WAV are not "lossless," because they are not compression algorithms.

Now, FLAC or ALE? Those are lossless. And yes, the various flavors of MPEG, ATRAC, Ogg, etc. are all lossy.
But CDs do not have a lossless compression algorithm, because they don't have any compression algorithms.
 
2012-03-06 02:35:38 PM  

Theaetetus: But CDs do not have a lossless compression algorithm, because they don't have any compression algorithms.


Right. Any losses come before the CD in the A/D sampling process at the studios. But some people will call anything other than the live performance itself as being lossy. Apparently, the author of the article is either in that camp or is mixing terminology.
 
2012-03-06 02:36:29 PM  

bingethinker: Pfft. Blind hatred seldom involves reason.


You didn't read the article did you?

/plenty of reason in there
 
2012-03-06 02:36:44 PM  
I'm more confused than ever.
 
2012-03-06 02:41:50 PM  

Dinjiin: Theaetetus: But CDs do not have a lossless compression algorithm, because they don't have any compression algorithms.

Right. Any losses come before the CD in the A/D sampling process at the studios. But some people will call anything other than the live performance itself as being lossy. Apparently, the author of the article is either in that camp or is mixing terminology.


Pff... There's attenuation due to the atmosphere, so even the live performance is lossy.

/unless the musicians use Monster Cables to plug in their instruments
 
2012-03-06 02:44:41 PM  
Since it appears I'm always going to be some corporations slave, I might as well get to choose who owns me. I have three main criteria:

1. I don't want it to be the music industry

2. I don't want it to be the music industry

3. I don't want it to be the music industry


So apple it is. Who cares.
 
2012-03-06 03:00:27 PM  

Dinjiin: Theaetetus: But CDs do not have a lossless compression algorithm, because they don't have any compression algorithms.

Right. Any losses come before the CD in the A/D sampling process at the studios. But some people will call anything other than the live performance itself as being lossy. Apparently, the author of the article is either in that camp or is mixing terminology.


Isn't TFA saying that "Mastered for iTunes" means that apple is having albums remastered so as to sound the best they possibly can on their shiatty lossy format? Essentially polishing a turd. His and others gripe with this seems to be with the fact they are wasting time and resources trying to make lossy music sound better when they could just a easily be releasing this music in a lossless format that already exists and not have to worry about it sounding good for a lossy file. He then speculates that the reason they are investing all these resources into lossy music is keep the files sizes small to make it easier for the inevitable in his opinion switch from being a music selling service to a music streaming service. He could be right. Who knows?
 
2012-03-06 03:05:45 PM  

Theaetetus:

Now, FLAC or ALE? Those are lossless. And yes, the various flavors of MPEG, ATRAC, Ogg, etc. are all lossy.
But CDs do not have a lossless compression algorithm, because they don't have any compression algorithms.


That was my point yes. I said the term lossless did not mean what he said it meant, and I even clarified that it also had no meaning in a case where a lossless compression was not being used (which includes no compression being used).

I did expect someone to have fun snarking at me, as is the fark tradition when one picks holes in an article ;)
 
2012-03-06 03:05:50 PM  

MoeSzyslak: Isn't TFA saying that "Mastered for iTunes" means that apple is having albums remastered so as to sound the best they possibly can on their shiatty lossy format? Essentially polishing a turd.


Yes, except that a 192kbps AAC encoding from a 192kHz/24bit master that was mastered specifically for AAC encoding won't be a turd. Nor will it be shiatty.
 
2012-03-06 03:17:51 PM  

Theaetetus: MoeSzyslak: Isn't TFA saying that "Mastered for iTunes" means that apple is having albums remastered so as to sound the best they possibly can on their shiatty lossy format? Essentially polishing a turd.

Yes, except that a 192kbps AAC encoding from a 192kHz/24bit master that was mastered specifically for AAC encoding won't be a turd. Nor will it be shiatty.


Why spend time and money trying to turn a lossy file into a better sounding lossy file when they can bypass all that and just release them in a lossless format? If it's strictly a file size issue I don't think that is such a big deal since storage is constantly getting physically smaller and cheaper.
 
ecl [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2012-03-06 03:31:24 PM  

GameSprocket: Oh no! Apple is making something that people are actually using work a little better! Those bastards! Hurrrr

On a related note, the car companies suck for making better land vehicles when we really want flying cars.I make apples to oranges comparisons b/c my head is filled with birdseed..

 
2012-03-06 03:33:42 PM  
Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead nailed this subject:-

We had a few complaints that the MP3s of our last record wasn't encoded at a high enough rate. Some even suggested we should have used FLACs, but if you even know what one of those is, and have strong opinions on them, you're already lost to the world of high fidelity and have probably spent far too much money on your speaker-stands.

I listen to opera on MP3 and it sounds just fine to me. On record it was horrible.
 
2012-03-06 04:01:15 PM  

MoeSzyslak: If it's strictly a file size issue I don't think that is such a big deal since storage is constantly getting physically smaller and cheaper.


From my observation, the average streaming audio site uses 128kbps. The average commercial audio marketplace uses 192kbps. My own FLAC repository averages between 800-1000kbps for 44.5kHz/16-bit encodes and 1300-1500kbps for 48kHz/24-bit encodes. That is a fairly significant jump in file size.

And while storage capacity and data transmission costs are shrinking, there are a few caveats. Mobile wireless networks are highly irregular regarding their speeds. A good deal of new capacity is being consumed by increased subscriber numbers as opposed to just existing subscribers simply using more data. Since a huge chunk of people who use music vaults are mobile subscribers, you have to keep their needs very much in mind. Also, music vault customers download a substantially higher number of songs versus traditional music stores. The download-once versus stream-many model will require much, much more bandwidth per customer.

I think you underestimate the additional load that streaming and lossless audio will cause networks. I'd simply be happy if streaming sites used 256kbps.
 
ecl [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2012-03-06 04:11:40 PM  

farkeruk: Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead nailed this subject:-

We had a few complaints that the MP3s of our last record wasn't encoded at a high enough rate. Some even suggested we should have used FLACs, but if you even know what one of those is, and have strong opinions on them, you're already lost to the world of high fidelity and have probably spent far too much money on your speaker-stands.

I listen to opera on MP3 and it sounds just fine to me. On record it was horrible.


Pretentious douchebag.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report