Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardc77
I’ll give you a reply but next time read what I have written more carefully.
|
I could say the same to you.
Quote:
1: I didn’t assume that everyone buying mp3s will be buying 128kbps files. I assumed that most people, (especially those who download their music illegally) will have a lot of those files on their pc.
Yes provided you have decent equipment most people can tell the difference between mp3s (even 320Kbps) and an uncompressed format. I can tell the difference even with bad equipment, but that’s my job.
|
You told people outright not to listen to, buy, or download MP3s. So if you're assuming that most people will have a lot of 128kbps MP3s on your computer, you're basically telling to scrap the lot of them... OR you're telling them to buy better gear so they can better hear the crappiness of their existing collection, with the caveat of making future acquisitions lossless ones, knowing full well that most of these people you're speaking about are not you and don't have your job, so wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the first place.
I don't argue that people shouldn't upgrade their equipment from objectively bad scenarios. I just think it's ridiculous to recommend that they scrap their entire collections and upgrade their systems because you think you can hear a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and lossless formats.
Be realistic.
Quote:
|
2: I never said that I always correct in all cases. I even said that there were exceptions like for jazz and classical music. But when we are talking about rock and pop records from the last 25 years its 95% safe to assume that the music has been brickwalled.
|
And I will maintain that your assumptions are merely that. Assumptions. And until you provide waveforms for remasters of 95% of all albums recorded in the last 25 years, apart from Jazz and Classical, then I'm going to make the assumption that your mandate of not buying a remastered album is unreasonable and based on personal bias, especially if the listener likes the remastered album, which is just as legitimate a reason for buying it as is your reason for not.
Quote:
|
3: The job of a good audio engineer should be towards audio fidelity. You wouldn’t buy a TV that gave you a blurry picture, right?
|
How on earth is an audio engineer going to do his job, as per your description of it, without all the people listening to the audio having the same equipment as he has? Is the job of an audio engineer to convince people to buy top-of-the-line gear? No. Any mixing or mastering engineer knows that the end listener will probably not be listening to a mix in the best of circumstances, and he would be out of a job if he did. Therefore, it is the job of an audio engineer not only to make the mix as good as it can be in the best of scenarios, but also the worst. Dictating the listening formats and mediums is not part of his job, and any engineer thinking it is, is highly delusional.
Quote:
Part 2
I recommended flash memory cards because it was part of my portable system.
I mentioned headphones because the budget I proposed was of 100 dollars, with that kind of money real speakers could not be afforded.
No, I’m not an authoritative figure (whatever that means) ,I don’t do publications because I’m not a researcher, as I said I’m an Electronic Engineer my dissertation was on Gaussian Noise. Do you know what a dissertation is ? It’s a lengthy and formal academic paper, you don’t do dissertations on generic topics, like media players, at least not in Science.
May I know your credentials?
Regarding any evidence provided by me that one player can translate a standard audio file better than the next. …well I used my ears, just like I did for the headphones and in many cases that was more than enough.
|
If you want to play the semantics game and refuse to actually address the point behind my response by deflecting, fine. You should research the concept of sarcasm for your next dissertation...
Regarding your ears and your perception, they don't translate to the rest of the world, no matter how much your ego would like it to. You obviously know this, because your initial post set you as the authority of what everyone else was doing wrong, so at least some part of you knows that you're attempting to "educate" these people into purchasing what you want them to purchase simply because you declare that it sounds better to you, and therefore must be true, and all these other people are living in sonic ignorance and suffering.
I understand that you may have very good reasoning for encouraging people to listen to higher quality audio via higher quality audio equipment. But the moment you start dictating that everyone's 320kbps MP3s are not good enough for YOU is where you draw the line between them and you, and you should remember that.
Quote:
Part 3
Of course my solution is arbitrary, it’s my personal opinion.
If you ask me if you could achieve the same effect by just simply plugging in the headphones to your laptop, my answer is maybe. I don’t know what kind of computer you have, how old it is and the quality of your sound card, so it’s not something that I can guarantee for everyone.
|
The bolded part is the point.
As for the rest, I don't use a laptop. My studio runs on a very capable PC. My audio interface is an Echo Audiofire 12, and has pretty decent DACs. (it's not an Apollo 16, but it ain't no slouch)
My studio monitors aren't Genelecs or anything, but they're also no KRK's either.
I say this to say that I am not listening in the typical scenario you describe. And since I have been involved with project audio engineering for 14 years, I do feel like I have at least a bit of a reference point. I'm just saying that from my perspective, and knowing the perspectives of common end-listeners, I can safely say that when it comes to the average listener, the expectations of the audio engineer has to meet the limitations of the listener at least half-way.
Otherwise, you're simply getting those barely perceptible increases in quality out to the minority of who is actually consuming the material you are producing.
I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily. I just think it's misguided to assume that because the majority may be not appreciating every single iota of representation as was meant by the engineer, that it's the engineer's job to dictate to that majority the methods by which to rectify it.
Particularly when that majority isn't going to appreciate the difference.
Again. Be realistic.
If you're an unrealistic audio engineer, you're a very useless audio engineer.