Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Philly Q on May 31, 2008, 06:55:23 PM
-
I'm starting this thread because of something interesting Blue mentioned in the "What are we all listening to..." thread, and I didn't want to take it seriously off-topic:
it's criminal that hi-res audio fell by the wayside in favour of skanky mp3 :cry:
Yeah, it's strange that some technological "advances" are moving us in the direction of lower quality. Compressed audio formats and movies on silly little 2-inch screens. :roll:
couldn't agree more Philly, i've got my DVD-A/SACD player and my HD-DVD player while my girlfiriend has an ipod and actually watches movies on either her computer or her phone! :o
people want quantity, not quality. just look at the muck people buy to eat from supermarkets! quality music, movies and food are all niche products now.
So, I'm wondering, how do we all listen to our music and watch our movies? It seems that the trend is to miniaturise everything and/or whack it all on a hard drive in compressed format, but at the same time we're getting bigger and bigger home cinema screens. It's all a bit contradictory. Is it all downloads for the under-25s? I'm prepared to bet Ben has some serious high-end audio equipment. :)
I still buy everything on CD and have loads of old stuff on vinyl, but listen mostly on my PC as both my turntable and CD player broke some time ago and I've been too busy blowing money on guitars to replace them...
And has anyone invested in HD-DVD or Blu-ray? I have thousands of DVDs but haven't gone hi-def yet, although I plan to in the not-too-distant future. Slightly dreading the costly but inevitable process of replacing SD discs with HD ones though....
-
i still don't have an ipod if that tells you anything. we have an LCD tv (cos our old one broke), and i think the picture quality was better with CRT... i still use a CRT monitor for my computer. if i could just figure out how to run a mobile phone on valves, i'd be set. plus i'm banking (perhaps a little too optimistically) that minidisc will make a comeback and my minidisc player will be cool again.
supermarket food quality is really starting to piss me off (it was mentioned in the post you quoted). tesco is awful, and most of the others are scrabbling to be as bad (and hence make so many profits)... it's retarded how people think that by saving about 3p, yet getting something which is MUCH MUCH WORSE, they're actually being smart and getting good value. EDIT: in guitar terms, it'd be like someone not being willing to pay £2000 for, say, a nik huber but thinking they were getting good value by paying £1950 for the lowest model squier...
people need to stop equating "value" with "cheap"... it's not always the same thing. "value" means something cheap which is also good... not something cheap which is absolute shite.
Sorry for the rant, but considering the thread, i guess that's what you wanted... :lol:
-
There was a massive argument I took part in about this recently.
Basically, its all for the better. Technology is in its teething period, but don't worry, as miniturisation gains speed, so will quality.
Allready today we have Blue-ray dvds on 42" LCD TVs, which while not as high quality as their CRT counterparts, are beginning to be replaced with new systems which make CRT screens totally obsolete in both depth and response.
And while for practicality smaller is better, the option for lossless media, and HD videos are still there, and will increase, especially for videos where HD formats will become the norm - Really, does anyone actually need 45gb for a movie? They have the space now, lets see them use it.
-
i still don't have an ipod if that tells you anything. we have an LCD tv (cos our old one broke), and i think the picture quality was better with CRT... i still use a CRT monitor for my computer.
Yeah, I still have a CRT monitor and a CRT TV (albeit one that was pretty much state-of-the-art when I bought it). My brother has a 46" Sony LCD and I'm absolutely certain CRT gives a better standard definition TV picture - the LCD looks great with HD material, of course.
However, I do really want to go HD, but I'm a great believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If something still works, it's a huge crisis of conscience for me to just dump it (I have a 25 year old watch, a 28 year old calculator, over 1,000 vinyl LPs which, as I said, I can't play... :roll: ). So I'm not sure what happens to my old TV etc if I get a plasma and Blu-ray.
Oh, and my mobile phone is an old Nokia which can't even display pictures, never mind video.
As for food, I totally agree with you - the cheap stuff (esp. fruit and veg) is inedible, so I only buy organic or the "premium" stuff like Sainsburys Taste the Difference and Tesco Finest. I know I should go to farmers' markets and all that, but they're thin on the ground in Sarf London.
And while for practicality smaller is better, the option for lossless media, and HD videos are still there, and will increase, especially for videos where HD formats will become the norm - Really, does anyone actually need 45gb for a movie? They have the space now, lets see them use it.
The crazy thing is, from what I've seen of HD video they're still using noise-reduction filtering and edge enhancement, which should be totally unnecessary with all that disc space. It wasn't really necessary even with standard definition.
-
I would not say no to watching a movie on a widescreen wall-mounted 52" HD television and watch it on a 19" LCD monitor. Or my iPod.
That's like.. degrading how beautiful Gwyneth Paltrow is. AND YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT!
CRT - Gaming
LCD - Quality
HD - MOVIES!
Or just normal DVD.
-
As for food, I totally agree with you - the cheap stuff (esp. fruit and veg) is inedible, so I only buy organic or the "premium" stuff like Sainsburys Taste the Difference and Tesco Finest. I know I should go to farmers' markets and all that, but they're thin on the ground in Sarf London.
From the farmers perspective, so mostly concerning meat, there will be little difference in the quality of the meat of thw cheap / finest. Animal welfare will be slightly improved, ie a free range chicken must have something like 6 square inches of grass. But the quality of this grass? could be turf etc
If you want some good lamb, try the M & S stuff, should be from either NZ or UK depending on time of year. My family has the stuff that isn't good enough for the store, and its great :)
-
I've started ripping the CD's i give a sh*t about in Apple Lossless simply because I got some new Etymotic Isolator In-Ears and i was hearing artefacts at 128kbps mp3. Also, since nothing (no quality) is lost I guess I will always have the CD quality tracks knocking around somewhere on a hard drive which means I could lose a CD and not worry that i'd never have the quality again.
With food, I'm always organic. I'm a veggie so i'm really into Quorn. And I had this wheat and dairy allergy when I was really small so 'real' milk (from cows) has NEVER tasted good to me. I've always enjoyed soya milk wayy more. I have got really into that oatly stuff recently though (that milk made from oats - with the local health food shop muesli i have for breakfast combined with the oat milk i've basically got fibre coming out my ears). Also, rye bread toasted with pure spread (soya butter) is where it's at IMO.
-
I have got myself an Ipod due to the absolute convenience it brings. Obviously there is a loss of sound quality but it is tolerable and as I have just about everything on it, it goes everywhere with me. I don't watch video on it. I have never got around to that and besides, who wants to watch a movie on a tiny Ipod screen. I have a half decent CD player and amp that I have had for years and I have no reson to change them. Asd for TV, we have abog standard tv given to us when my son emigrated to the USA. Does the job though Mrs 38th is talking of getting a new one. She also wants a games console but we are both ignorant of them and are trying to work out what one to get.
-
iPod? Yes. But the DAC on my PSP sounds much better and I use the PSP for my mobile music listening now.
CDs? Yes. Because MP3 and AAC sound like cr@p. They are very handy if you're on a noisy/crowded train (try living in NYC) but once the noise floor drops, the cr@p factor increases exponentially. Most of today's production is pants, but CD still sounds the best if you can't get SACD.
Blu Ray? Yes. Does it look better than SD DVD? Very much so. I do not have a dedicated Blu-Ray player, however. I use a PS3, which we also use for gaming, music and movie storage, as well as interweb surfing; it's our basic convergence device.
HDTV? Yes. Plasma still yields the best image, especially if you own a Runco.
Now, here's a sub-topic: Do SD DVDs look better when they are scaled up to 1080i, 720p or 1080p? The answer: It depends on the bitrate of the original DVD. Some SD DVDs are incredible when upscaled (The entire LotR collection, for instance) and some look horrible.
As for my playback systems, I have both a hi end hi fi as well as a hi end home theater setup. (gwEm and PhilKing have both been to my office and know how insane some of the gear I am surrounded with gets)
Vinyl? Still the most rewarding playback medium, but I ditched my analog rig a few years ago (Linn LP12/Ekos/Troika/Cirkus/Valhalla with a Levinson phono stage) along with thousands of metal and classic rock/prog rockLPs (and a few others) because I had no room left in my small NYC apartment with my growing family. For the most part, I don't miss LPs, but I did enjoy going back in time to when music had much better production value than today.
I guess that puts me firmly in the "hi tech" camp. PDT_008
-
I have got myself an Ipod due to the absolute convenience it brings. Obviously there is a loss of sound quality but it is tolerable and as I have just about everything on it, it goes everywhere with me. I don't watch video on it. I have never got around to that and besides, who wants to watch a movie on a tiny Ipod screen. I have a half decent CD player and amp that I have had for years and I have no reson to change them. Asd for TV, we have abog standard tv given to us when my son emigrated to the USA. Does the job though Mrs 38th is talking of getting a new one. She also wants a games console but we are both ignorant of them and are trying to work out what one to get.
Same.
After years of slating Ipods in favour of other MP3 players, I have finally succumbed and bought myself an 80gb Classic.
They now offer MP3 instead of just AAC, and about 80% of my music is 320kbps, can you still hear the difference? Yes. Is it tolerable? Very much so.
The practicality and the interface make it a cut above all the others, including the Irivers and Sonys with their superior sound quality.
-
hmm, well since this is kinda my fault, i better say what i use :D
i would love real high end gear, but i think i've managed to get decent gear on a relative budget. for cd i have a NAD C542, which is great, for dvd and dvd-audio/SACD a pioneer 656a combo player, a Toshiba ep-35 HD-DVD player and the same Yamaha A5 multi channel amp and Mission 5.1 speakers i've used for years. i also have a mini-disc deck and a sky+ satellite reciever.
i'm between record decks, hoping to get a Pro-ject Debut soon. i will get a Blu-ray player, but not until they finally release one that actually works, with profile 2.0 firmware. it bewilders me that HD-DVD is defunct when the work in progress ( i.e. not ready for public consumption ) that is Blu-ray won.
-
I have too many CDs to be honest. But that's the point really.
I have my PS3 for movies, DVD and Blu-ray alike.
CDs are ripped and put on my iTouch. I have a few Gilbert videos, but that's only cause: 1. I don't like downloading music and 2. I couldn't get his CDs anywhere, apart from his solo work which I do have on there.
We are currently viewing the world through a box TV, a Hitachi. Which is as old as I am. It will need replaced as the colour is fading. Hopefully the parents will give in. There's a flat screen in the kitchen, which is probably the most hi-tech we have in the house.
-
for dvd and dvd-audio/SACD a pioneer 656a combo player.
:D That's exactly the same model as I've got, strangely enough, although I suspect it's getting more than a bit antiquated as a DVD player.
I tried to play my one and only SACD on it yesterday and nothing happened, so I guess my amp (also Pioneer) couldn't interpret the source or something (it came through the TV's speakers OK).
I guess that puts me firmly in the "hi tech" camp.
Hi tech but also high end, which is what I expected. Thanks Ben, you didn't disappoint. :wink:
I am planning on getting a plasma, I have real problems with the black (or should I say grey) levels, amongst other things, on LCD. I don't know if we have Runco in the UK, I'd like a Pioneer if I could afford it but more likely will end up with Panasonic.
-
As for food, I totally agree with you - the cheap stuff (esp. fruit and veg) is inedible, so I only buy organic or the "premium" stuff like Sainsburys Taste the Difference and Tesco Finest. I know I should go to farmers' markets and all that, but they're thin on the ground in Sarf London.
look for a veggie box scheme - fresh organic veg pulled out the ground and delivered stright to your door... cant beat it
-
i will get a Blu-ray player, but not until they finally release one that actually works, with profile 2.0 firmware. it bewilders me that HD-DVD is defunct when the work in progress ( i.e. not ready for public consumption ) that is Blu-ray won.
I agree, but ultimately I'm glad Toshiba and the HD-DVD camp gave up the "war" so quickly after Warner dropped HD-DVD. I think having opposing formats was seriously slowing down the take-up of HD - I certainly wasn't prepared to take a 50/50 chance on a format which might be dead in a few years. And I also didn't want to invest in both just to get a full choice.
It's good to see that some of the independent distributors like Criterion and Blue Underground are now starting to issue Blu-ray discs, because those are the kinds of films I'm really into, more than major studio stuff.
I'm still concerned about region-coding though. I'm hoping somone's going to come up with a multi-region Blu-ray player soon. I suppose I could get a region B player and a Blu-ray PC drive set to region A (or vice versa), but it's too much hassle. The majority of discs at the moment seem to be region-free, but there's no guarantee that'll continue.
-
I tried to play my one and only SACD on it yesterday and nothing happened, so I guess my amp (also Pioneer) couldn't interpret the source or something (it came through the TV's speakers OK).
i'm guessing your player's connected to the amp digitally, either optical or coaxial? the SACD and DVD-A sound is only available through the analogue outputs, which is why you could hear it through your tv. you need to connect either the 5.1 analogue outputs to the same on your amp, if it has them. or the stereo outs, preferably the front pair from the 5.1 set.
i agree that an early win in the hi-def format war was a good thing, having two incompatible formats wasn't doing anyone any good, it's just that i think the wrong side won! basically, sony bribed their way to a win, they paid warners half a billion dollars to drop hd-dvd, and of course used the ps3 as a loss leader to get players to the public. the underhandedness is one thing, the fact that it's an incomplete format which is still only promising features that hd-dvd had from day one is what really bothers me.
oh, i forgot to say what tv i have! i had a crt widescreen until last year, i turned it on one day and there was a fizzing noise and a little puff of smoke! in a kind of emergency i ended up with a Toshiba lcd. black levels aren't too bad, and picture quality is good, at least as long as nothing moves too fast!! motion blur can be quite noticeable. if i was buying now i'd probably go plasma, although i still worry about screen burn, to which lcd is immune. also, plasma is now much more expensive, and harder to find.
hmm, long post :roll:
-
if i was buying now i'd probably go plasma, although i still worry about screen burn, to which lcd is immune. also, plasma is now much more expensive, and harder to find.
hmm, long post :roll:
Don't worry about long posts, they're the only type I do. Keyboard diarrhoea. :roll: :wink:
I'm definitely going plasma, I don't think I could live with LCD motion blur although they're said to be improving it all the time. I worry a bit about the screen burn aspect too, although I've never actually seen how much of a problem it is (or isn't). The main issue must be those annoying little channel identity logos, I'd think.
Plasma isn't as expensive as I thought, it's come down a lot. A friend of mine asked me to look into 42" HD TVs for her, with £700 to spend, and I said "you won't get a plasma for that money" - but in fact I found a very nice 42" Panasonic well under budget.
There seems to be a lot of support for plasma too, and a number of independent reports putting it well ahead of LCD for picture quality. It's almost a bit like the HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing, with Sony only making LCD and Pioneer only making plasma! Panasonic make both, but if you look at their "LCD or Plasma?" page it basically dismisses LCD! :lol:
I think plasma will be around for a long time to come, especially since it's the format best suited for 50"+ displays, which seem to be popular with those who have the money (when they're not watching movies on their iPods).
i'm guessing your player's connected to the amp digitally, either optical or coaxial? the SACD and DVD-A sound is only available through the analogue outputs, which is why you could hear it through your tv. you need to connect either the 5.1 analogue outputs to the same on your amp, if it has them. or the stereo outs, preferably the front pair from the 5.1 set.
Yeah, it's an optical cable I think, certainly digital as you surmised. I'll have a look at it, but I'm not too bothered as I only have the one SACD and two DVD-As (which seemed to play OK, but it may be because I left the TV on so maybe that's what I was hearing - it did seem a bit thin :oops: :oops: ).
-
Yeah, it's an optical cable I think, certainly digital as you surmised. I'll have a look at it, but I'm not too bothered as I only have the one SACD and two DVD-As (which seemed to play OK, but it may be because I left the TV on so maybe that's what I was hearing - it did seem a bit thin :oops: :oops: ).
well, dvd-a WILL work through the digital out, but you're getting dolby digital, not the hi-res audio. you actually have to go into the player's setup menu and set it to dvd-audio rather than dvd video. it won't affect ordinary dvd's at all, it means the player will see the hi-res part of the disc instead of the dolby/dts part.
-
I don't have an MP3 player because I don't like MP3's! I have a miniDisc player (and several recorders), a DAT recorder and SACD and CD players. My main stereo has Quicksilver valve monoblocks, a Linn/Ittok/Benz Glider, Carver Tube CD player, Sony SACD, Carver preamp and Joseph Audio speakers. I was just listening to vinyl yesterday and it still has the best sound. I do have an HD TV but it is CRT, that is with a Nakamichi surround sound system.
I'm still stongly in the analog world (still have 8 track fostex reel to reel and a Revox B77 half track).
-
i think i've caught what philly caught from his keyboard... sorry... :lol:
There was a massive argument I took part in about this recently.
Basically, its all for the better. Technology is in its teething period, but don't worry, as miniturisation gains speed, so will quality.
Allready today we have Blue-ray dvds on 42" LCD TVs, which while not as high quality as their CRT counterparts, are beginning to be replaced with new systems which make CRT screens totally obsolete in both depth and response.
And while for practicality smaller is better, the option for lossless media, and HD videos are still there, and will increase, especially for videos where HD formats will become the norm - Really, does anyone actually need 45gb for a movie? They have the space now, lets see them use it.
yeah, i'm well aware that by and large it's for the better, i just don't like feeling like we're being taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies trying to cash in on each newest fad... "HD-ready" tvs which aren't really hd-ready, etc. etc. not to mention the built-in obsolescence...
Yeah, I still have a CRT monitor and a CRT TV (albeit one that was pretty much state-of-the-art when I bought it). My brother has a 46" Sony LCD and I'm absolutely certain CRT gives a better standard definition TV picture - the LCD looks great with HD material, of course.
However, I do really want to go HD, but I'm a great believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If something still works, it's a huge crisis of conscience for me to just dump it (I have a 25 year old watch, a 28 year old calculator, over 1,000 vinyl LPs which, as I said, I can't play... :roll: ). So I'm not sure what happens to my old TV etc if I get a plasma and Blu-ray.
Oh, and my mobile phone is an old Nokia which can't even display pictures, never mind video.
As for food, I totally agree with you - the cheap stuff (esp. fruit and veg) is inedible, so I only buy organic or the "premium" stuff like Sainsburys Taste the Difference and Tesco Finest. I know I should go to farmers' markets and all that, but they're thin on the ground in Sarf London.
haha, you sound like me. i only buy a new phone when my old one breaks, and i do that reluctantly.
i'd probably put up with worse food if i lived in a cool (you probably disagree) city like london. What annoys me is living in a supposedly rural area where i still can't get nice food. one of the few advantages is supposedly fresh food, coupled with cheaper house prices. well, tesco and co have moved in, and pretty recently northern ireland had the highest price rises in europe...
gotta love living in a worst-of-both-worlds area... :evil:
CDs? Yes. Because MP3 and AAC sound like cr@p. They are very handy if you're on a noisy/crowded train (try living in NYC) but once the noise floor drops, the cr@p factor increases exponentially. Most of today's production is pants, but CD still sounds the best if you can't get SACD.
agreed. i wouldn't mind using an ipod if i had to do a noisy commute, but these eejits who use an ipod (with cheapo speakers) as their main hi-fi, and then think they're awesome?
:roll:
from the rest of your post it sounds like you're willing to use the best of the old stuff combined with the best of the new... which sounds pretty sensible to me. far as i'm concerned, something isn't necessarily awesome because it's old or new, something either good or it isn't.
oh yeah, regarding plasma, we'd have liked to get a plasma but they only seem to start at 32", and we wanted 26 o 28". kinda annoying.
-
i'd probably put up with worse food if i lived in a cool (you probably disagree) city like london.
You know me too well, Dave! :lol: I think I hate London (at least as a place to live) almost as much as Rob Kilby did.
oh yeah, regarding plasma, we'd have liked to get a plasma but they only seem to start at 32", and we wanted 26 o 28". kinda annoying.
Yeah, you'd be very lucky to find a plasma at 32" and there aren't even many 37" ones. The overlap between LCD and plasma seems to be in the 37" to 46" range, below that it's LCD and above it's plasma (or projection systems). I don't know the technical mumbo-jumbo, but plasma technology is apparently better suited to larger screens.
I read a couple of weeks ago that Pioneer are dropping the 42" model from their Full HD Kuro range, which is a shame as I'd quite fancied getting that one, money permitting.
-
I'll be honest, I cant always tell a huge difference between something like 192kb/s mp3 and a Lossless fomat. I probably could if I had high quality audio stuff but at the minute the only good quality sound I have are my SR80s. I'm still using a stock onboard soundcard and Creative labs speakers because I cant afford anything better yet (I WILL get an EMU 0404usb and some nice monitors eventually). The SR80s did offer a huge improvement in sound over Koss Sparkplugs I was using before and some of my stuff sounded kinda cr@p but thats because it was low quality mp3 (under 128kbps mp3). I use an iPod with mp3s as well and the quality is good enough for what I use it for.
-
I usually watch films on a Pioneer 50" plasma HDTV which is epic picture quality.
Music is mainly mp3's as it's convenient for most things and I use my Sony K850i phone for music which is good enough.
I might have to bust out the Led Zep 1 vinyl sometime soon 8)
-
I usually watch films on a Pioneer 50" plasma HDTV which is epic picture quality.
Sounds great! In HD, or standard def?
-
Oh it is!! Brilliant TV except a few months after we got it the price came down by about £4000 which is rather annoying.
We're just looking at the new BBC box as the ETS guy recommended it but if not we'll probably get sky HD.
We used to have a CRT Panasonic 36" without surround sound which was the business at the time but when you step it up with the better tv and a big surround sound system, it's just a totally better experience. Good for gaming too. I was running Halo 2 on xbox live with a friend and having 25" each is great cos usually it's cramped up on a tiny screen.
-
I always find it hilarious that folks who love and nigh on worship vinyl, with all it's faults, get apoplectic with rage about mp3s :lol:
For one, I'm prefectly happy with listening to music on as mp3s. A, it means I can have a terabyte of music that takes up less than a cubic foor, B, I can have all of it in one playlist on random when folks are round and we play Guess The Band :lol: and C, I really, REALLY don;t like music to be shiney. Dirt and grit every time.
-
Vinyl preforably, if not CDs. I guess that puts me in the lo-tech... right?
As for movies I care disturbingly little for picture and sound quality. Hell, I enjoy watching movies on youtube even it's pixilated and slightly out of synch (but not too much)
-
ipod - I hate them. With a passion. Fricken fashion accesories with cr@p reproduction. I do, however, listen to MP3s, ripped to 192 (ewwww-ish) on my phone (rubbish sound - marginally better than an i-pod) and occasionally (longer trips) my sony MP3 player (at 320Kbs on that, since theres space, and it sounds about the best of any MP3 player I've heard). Its a convenience, more than anything. Beats traffic, phones ringing and conversations about utter cr@p in the background of my office and what have you.
I listen to these on Sennheiser CX95s, which are good enough to bring out the best of the sound, but not so good that your just listening to artifacts.
Home -
CD - Very much big time. I listen to CDs on my Arcam Diva CD73 (24 bit, 192Khz wolfson DACs), through my Adam A7s and/or NAD C352 into B&W DM602 S2's.
MP3s at home - Yes. I use Foobar2000 and the DACs on my EMU1616M soundcard to upsample MP3s to 24 bit 96Khz and listen trough the Adams and NAD/B&Ws as well.
While the dacs on the EMU arent [/i]quite as pleasing to listen to as the Arcam, they deliver the goods, and the upsampling works pretty well (not perfect, as I doncluded with A/B/C tests against FLAC and WAV - but suprisingly close). As an aside: I also found that FLAC doesnt sound as good as WAV. I expected no difference, but it lost some punch and authority in the low end compared to WAV).
I also use the following headphones for both MP3s and CDs at home:
Sennheiser HD25-1, RS-140
Future sonics atrios
Shure E4
Blu ray - No. Couldnt give a monkeys. I use my PCs DVD player. I dont own a TV, let alone an HD one (I think my monitor is HD, though). Couldnt care less about it. I'll get one when they are more standard.
Display in general - I use a TFT, and a geforce 8800GT - While I recognise its inferiority in image quality to CRT, I dont really care: It works for me as a display (given my apathy toward displays: they have to be pretty good, but not amazing) and the biggest bonus is 22" of screen doesnt go 20" back, too, which gives me more space in my little flat to jam things that are more worthwhile to me in. The 8800GT is for my (rare) gaming, and it rocks as a display source, even if the monitor isnt that great (its about as good as TFTs get, but like I said; not as good as CRT).
-
i'd probably put up with worse food if i lived in a cool (you probably disagree) city like london.
You know me too well, Dave! :lol: I think I hate London (at least as a place to live) almost as much as Rob Kilby did.
oh yeah, regarding plasma, we'd have liked to get a plasma but they only seem to start at 32", and we wanted 26 o 28". kinda annoying.
Yeah, you'd be very lucky to find a plasma at 32" and there aren't even many 37" ones. The overlap between LCD and plasma seems to be in the 37" to 46" range, below that it's LCD and above it's plasma (or projection systems). I don't know the technical mumbo-jumbo, but plasma technology is apparently better suited to larger screens.
I read a couple of weeks ago that Pioneer are dropping the 42" model from their Full HD Kuro range, which is a shame as I'd quite fancied getting that one, money permitting.
haha, yeah, i figured it's probably different to live in it! :lol:
no idea why the plasmas start so big either, there's probably some reason for it (even if it's plain old profiteering) though... just extremely annoying.
-
ipod - I hate them. With a passion. Fricken fashion accesories with cr@p reproduction. I do, however, listen to MP3s, ripped to 192 (ewwww-ish) on my phone (rubbish sound - marginally better than an i-pod) and occasionally (longer trips) my sony MP3 player (at 320Kbs on that, since theres space, and it sounds about the best of any MP3 player I've heard). Its a convenience, more than anything. Beats traffic, phones ringing and conversations about utter cr@p in the background of my office and what have you.
I listen to these on Sennheiser CX95s, which are good enough to bring out the best of the sound, but not so good that your just listening to artifacts.
Home -
CD - Very much big time. I listen to CDs on my Arcam Diva CD73 (24 bit, 192Khz wolfson DACs), through my Adam A7s and/or NAD C352 into B&W DM602 S2's.
MP3s at home - Yes. I use Foobar2000 and the DACs on my EMU1616M soundcard to upsample MP3s to 24 bit 96Khz and listen trough the Adams and NAD/B&Ws as well.
While the dacs on the EMU arent [/i]quite as pleasing to listen to as the Arcam, they deliver the goods, and the upsampling works pretty well (not perfect, as I doncluded with A/B/C tests against FLAC and WAV - but suprisingly close). As an aside: I also found that FLAC doesnt sound as good as WAV. I expected no difference, but it lost some punch and authority in the low end compared to WAV).
I also use the following headphones for both MP3s and CDs at home:
Sennheiser HD25-1, RS-140
Future sonics atrios
Shure E4
Blu ray - No. Couldnt give a monkeys. I use my PCs DVD player. I dont own a TV, let alone an HD one (I think my monitor is HD, though). Couldnt care less about it. I'll get one when they are more standard.
Display in general - I use a TFT, and a geforce 8800GT - While I recognise its inferiority in image quality to CRT, I dont really care: It works for me as a display (given my apathy toward displays: they have to be pretty good, but not amazing) and the biggest bonus is 22" of screen doesnt go 20" back, too, which gives me more space in my little flat to jam things that are more worthwhile to me in. The 8800GT is for my (rare) gaming, and it rocks as a display source, even if the monitor isnt that great (its about as good as TFTs get, but like I said; not as good as CRT).
Newest generation are far superior to the previous ones.
Only reason why I bought one.
And personally I feel its more than a fasion accesory, its the only MP3 player on the market which I've seen with an interface which doesn't make you want to tear your hair out. I've had Iriver, Archos and Sony.
-
Exactly, the iPods are so nice to use compared to other mp3 players. I have a Creative Zen Touch and its awful. Takes ages to start up/shut down as well. I want a new iPod classic but they're a bit expensive for me at the minute.
-
I want a new iPod classic but they're a bit expensive for me at the minute.
Does iPod Classic mean it's a reproduction of an old iPod? I know ideas get recycled ever-more-quickly nowadays but that's ridiculous. :wink:
-
I want a new iPod classic but they're a bit expensive for me at the minute.
Does iPod Classic mean it's a reproduction of an old iPod? I know ideas get recycled ever-more-quickly nowadays but that's ridiculous. :wink:
With the release of the new Ipod Touch - Fancy touch screen thing, they needed to rename the traditional ipods to Ipod Classic, so that the Ipod Touch could take the mantle of the term Ipod.
Exactly, the iPods are so nice to use compared to other mp3 players. I have a Creative Zen Touch and its awful. Takes ages to start up/shut down as well. I want a new iPod classic but they're a bit expensive for me at the minute.
Only cost me £130.
-
Sorry, but I couldnt give a flying shitee about the interface. Thats just wrapping paper. I care what they sound like. Its a music player for god sake.
All the ones I'ev heard sounded bollocks. I'll keep an ear out for the new ones. I may or may not revise my judgment :wink:
-
Sorry, but I couldnt give a flying shitee about the interface. Thats just wrapping paper. I care what they sound like. Its a music player for god sake.
All the ones I'ev heard sounded bollocks. I'll keep an ear out for the new ones. I may or may not revise my judgment :wink:
It's not wrapping paper when you're taking journeys to and from school each day, listening to it between lessons, constantly changing band/song, the worse sound quality is nothing compared to the brilliant interface imo.
I've had MP3 players which sound amazing, with bad interface, like my old Iriver PMP, the thing was slow as $%&#, and took years to change song. The Ipod works flawlessly.
-
Only cost me £130.
:o where from? Last time I checked it was about £160 for a 60gb one on ebay.
-
Only cost me £130.
:o where from? Last time I checked it was about £160 for a 60gb one on ebay.
80gb you mean?
There are LOADS of auctions on Ebay for about £130, people selling boxed/wrapped perfectly good Ipods probably stolen/imported.
Its easy to find a bargain.
I've seen some late night auctions go for about £110, then 160gb ones go for around £180 aswell.
-
Sorry, but I couldnt give a flying shitee about the interface. Thats just wrapping paper. I care what they sound like. Its a music player for god sake.
All the ones I'ev heard sounded bollocks. I'll keep an ear out for the new ones. I may or may not revise my judgment :wink:
It's not wrapping paper when you're taking journeys to and from school each day, listening to it between lessons, constantly changing band/song, the worse sound quality is nothing compared to the brilliant interface imo.
I've had MP3 players which sound amazing, with bad interface, like my old Iriver PMP, the thing was slow as $%&#, and took years to change song. The Ipod works flawlessly.
Well, horses for courses, but my sony vaio sounds great (for an MP3 player) and even though the interface was often slagged off on it (it was discontinued due to lack of interest because out of the box it didnt play MP3 or WMA; it converted to (the superior, in point of fact) ATRAC: it was no trouble to update the firmware, though :D), I dont find it a problem in the least. And thats with analagous situations: I dont go to school, but on the way to work, at my desk and so on (I used to use it for that stuff till I got a phone that can do it).
I had a creative zen before the sony: halfway house: sounded OK, no problem with the interface.
I mean, FFS, in this day and age you wouldnt think anyone would have trouble with some piddly menus and buttons: no matter what the interface is, you get used to it.
A mate of mine has an Iriver that sounds ok, and he's never complained about the interface once.
P.S. In my estimation if a music player doesnt sound good then it doesnt work flawlessly ;)
-
Only cost me £130.
:o where from? Last time I checked it was about £160 for a 60gb one on ebay.
80gb you mean?
There are LOADS of auctions on Ebay for about £130, people selling boxed/wrapped perfectly good Ipods probably stolen/imported.
Its easy to find a bargain.
I've seen some late night auctions go for about £110, then 160gb ones go for around £180 aswell.
Ah it must be the 80 then and I was only looking at BINs so I'll keep a lookout for one going cheap :) fwiw I dont see any problem with the quality of ipods, maybe its just my un-audiophilic ears :P
-
It's worth bearing in mind with regards to sound quality on mp3 players, that if you're listening on in ear headphones, then you really have no place to gripe about anything. If you're using good quality over ear headphones, that's a different ball game altogether. I absolutely will not use the in-ears ever, there's not a single pair on the marker that aren't laughably bad, at least not that I've tried and I have worked in a shop selling them, so I've tried a fair few.
-
It's worth bearing in mind with regards to sound quality on mp3 players, that if you're listening on in ear headphones, then you really have no place to gripe about anything. If you're using good quality over ear headphones, that's a different ball game altogether. I absolutely will not use the in-ears ever, there's not a single pair on the marker that aren't laughably bad, at least not that I've tried and I have worked in a shop selling them, so I've tried a fair few.
100% agreed.
In ear headphones are abysmal. And there are some companies selling them for over £200...
-
It's worth bearing in mind with regards to sound quality on mp3 players, that if you're listening on in ear headphones, then you really have no place to gripe about anything. If you're using good quality over ear headphones, that's a different ball game altogether. I absolutely will not use the in-ears ever, there's not a single pair on the marker that aren't laughably bad, at least not that I've tried and I have worked in a shop selling them, so I've tried a fair few.
Not all, good buddy. Not all.
Depends what kind your talking about. In-ear phones like this
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/HEALTH/conditions/03/14/ipod.hearingrisk/vert.ipod.earbuds.jpg)
That just sit outside your ears are uniformly dreadfull.
Canal phones, like this
(http://thenokiaguide.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/17/er4p_outline3.jpg)
can be great.
Ones I've tried:
cr@p:
Sony fantopias (these sell for 50 quid why now?)
There were some philips that I forget the model of that were a similar price. They sucked too.
OK:
Sennheisser CX300
Good: Senn CX95
Very good: Shure E4
Great: Future Sonics Atrios
It takes more cash for an in-ear to be good, but they can sound fantastic.
I'd be interested to hear which ones you didnt like. Also, whether or not they were right out of the box, or broken in (which all headphones need, obviously, but some more than others: 12 hours of pink noise can work wonders for any headphone).
-
I tried some outrageously expensive shure ones that my mate bought, they were terrible.
I've also tried some of the top range Sennheisers, was not at all impressed.
Maybe my standards are too high? When you have Grado, Audio Technica, Beyerdynamic and AKG selling amazing headphones for under £100, there seems no to buy anything else...
-
my etymotic er6i's (65 quid) that i got a few weeks back are amazing. i believe they were designed specifically for ipods. they took some getting used to but seriously i cannot big them up enough. especially as they block out everything aswell. it means you can have really comfortable volumes and not struggle to hear because of external noise.
(http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/images/er6i-side.jpg)
-
I'd be interested to hear which ones you didnt like. Also, whether or not they were right out of the box, or broken in (which all headphones need, obviously, but some more than others: 12 hours of pink noise can work wonders for any headphone).
To be honest I couldn't tell you model names, only brands - which would be a few from all the major manufacturers, admitedly they were all straight out the box.
If I'm listening with headphones it's always with either Sennheiser HD215's if I'm out and about or Beyer DT770's if I'm in the house, so I am comparing with good headphones, to be fair.
-
As am I:
I listen to HD25-1s and RS-140s in the house, and the atrios are right up there with them. The E4s not so much, because I dont like their sound (it has a very honest, uncoloured, un-weighted low end thats no fun, and the highs tail off a little, I think around 16k or so), but they are if anything better in clarity and sound seperation.
Dont be judging the little headphones too harshly. They can be great. (That said, £50 in ears are never going to compete with £50 cans, but you get to a certain point and they start to get very, very good).
Actually, I just saw that your going to see ackerc--ke, so I assume youre familiar with Nile? The guy that engineers and produces Nile swears by his future sonics (the top end, custom moulded, no-expense-spared driver model, mind you), saying that they blow Senn HD650s out of the water.
-
Well there you go.
Maybe I need to be having a look at some. I've never got on with in ears in the comfort stakes either but I do were canal earplugs for gigs and playing and get on with them fine, so maybe I need to have a look at some.
-
Have fun with that - there are a lot of good canalphones out there.
Maybe check out Headfi forums - I lurk there once in a while: its basically a bragging-rights forum with a hint of music appreciation (the slogan "Welcome to headfi, sorry about your wallet" gives the game away a tad!) but there is a lot of good knowledge there.
Dont be completely fooled by higher prices though! (for example, my favourite in ears, the FS atrios, are quite a lot cheaper than my shures, and I can see why the shures command a high price looking objectively, at soundstage, clarity, sound seperation, accuracy in transients and what not, but I dont actually like the sound nearly as much, and the atrios rival them in the objective senses as well: another example would be Senn CX300s blowing sonys and philips more than 2ce the price away).
As always, trust your ears.
Speaking of ears - try some Ultimate Ears Superfi 10s and tell me what you think (I want to know, I've had my eye on them for a bit, but cant really justify it).
-
I think indy likes his Etymotic in ear monitors as well (think thats what he uses?) but if I remember right they broke on him :(
I have some Koss Sparkplugs which are pretty poor. Really dull muddy sound. The first pair I had of them were better quality but this 2nd set I got (after the first ones died) are much duller. They're ok with an ipod or something though so long as you tweak the EQ to have some more treble.
-
I've never heard ety's. Its on my to-listen-list. Heard good and bad things about them, so none of them are high on the list.
Only heard bad about the Koss stuff, I'm afraid. They dont seem to be a very good make for IEMs.
-
Speaking of ears - try some Ultimate Ears Superfi 10s and tell me what you think (I want to know, I've had my eye on them for a bit, but cant really justify it).
I had them. rubbish sound for listening - they really were 'monitors' if you know what i mean. everything sounded flat and lifeless. Then they broke.
Good isolation though.
-
Speaking of ears - try some Ultimate Ears Superfi 10s and tell me what you think (I want to know, I've had my eye on them for a bit, but cant really justify it).
I had them. rubbish sound for listening - they really were 'monitors' if you know what i mean. everything sounded flat and lifeless. Then they broke.
Good isolation though.
Ah! Thanks Indy (it hasnt really put me off at all, btw: I can make more use of more monitors than 'hifi'!)
-
when you consider that 99% of all music is still made to be 16 bit 44.1khz, then why do we even need DVD's for playing back music? I store tracks on DVD's though as a back up, and in case I need to remix it, I also think mp3's are low tech, because they sound terrible compared to WAV files, no matter how high the kbps rate is. From a mastering point of view mp3s are a disaster as it makes people make stupidly loud mixes, which is degrading the sound's detail and dynamic range. To go forwards we need to go backwards, to the pre mp3 generation.
-
when you consider that 99% of all music is still made to be 16 bit 44.1khz, then why do we even need DVD's for playing back music?
Because that's just plain not true; just because you buy CDs in 16bit 44.1khz doesn't mean that that's how it was recorded. Most music recorded digitally nowadays will be recorded at 24bit 96khz or more, depending on the specs or the gear in the studio.
-
when you consider that 99% of all music is still made to be 16 bit 44.1khz, then why do we even need DVD's for playing back music?
Because that's just plain not true; just because you buy CDs in 16bit 44.1khz doesn't mean that that's how it was recorded. Most music recorded digitally nowadays will be recorded at 24bit 96khz or more, depending on the specs or the gear in the studio.
I see what you are saying here...yes one ponders...
-
I'm wondering if, as the technology grows and prices comes down, Bluray will overtake CD?
If CD can store 74 minutes of 16 bit 44 khz music, and has an 800mb capacity (?), then Blu-ray, at 50 gb, could store 8 CDs at studio quality 24 bit 192 khz. In the future, you could even get blu ray storing 90 minutes of 32 bit at 1.2 mhz, once studio recording caught up.
This would be too High fidelity to tell the difference from vinyl, and also wouldn't compress every time the disc was spun.
Personally, I listen to 192 kb/s on my iPod, it's the only way I can fit all my music on. I have found that some tracks I used to love never get heard because they're poor quality, for example hells bells: The rest of the album is 192, but having just this one (not sure how) at 128 means those glorious tolls sound like rain-sticks, spoiling the whole lot.
MP3 has emerged through convenience. in 10 years when we're all on 1gb/sec internet and a nano-sized mp3 player can have a terabyte hard drive, The default format will have gained quality accordingly.
-
I'm wondering if, as the technology grows and prices comes down, Bluray will overtake CD?
If CD can store 74 minutes of 16 bit 44 khz music, and has an 800mb capacity (?), then Blu-ray, at 50 gb, could store 8 CDs at studio quality 24 bit 192 khz. In the future, you could even get blu ray storing 90 minutes of 32 bit at 1.2 mhz, once studio recording caught up.
This would be too High fidelity to tell the difference from vinyl, and also wouldn't compress every time the disc was spun.
Personally, I listen to 192 khz on my iPod, it's the only way I can fit all my music on. I have found that some tracks I used to love never get heard because they're poor quality, for example hells bells: The rest of the album is 192, but having just this one (not sure how) at 128 means those glorious tolls sound like rain-sticks, spoiling the whole lot.
MP3 has emerged through convenience. in 10 years when we're all on 1gb/sec internet and a nano-sized mp3 player can have a terabyte hard drive, The default format will have gained quality accordingly.
I dont agree.
I hope youre right, but thats not how this is playing out and I dont see a reason for it to change.
Talk to most people, without sounding like too much of a tw@t, but by that I basically mean people that you arent going to find on a forum for handmade guitar pickups, if you see what I mean, and they think that MP3 is fine; they can maybe hear a difference but they dont care. What they want from new products is to get more songs on it, for it to be smaller, for it to be prettier, for it to have more peripheral functions, for the interface to be smoother/flashier and so on and so forth. I mean, most people are listening to ipods on stock earbuds: they obviously arent too concerned about quality.
So in the future we're going to have very much what we have now: most people, and therefore the driving force of the market, not really too concerned about sound quality that want big capacity to have lots of stuff on it, but wont use most of the space, in a small unit that looks cool and sounds ok, and a few that will use that space to store a lower number of higher quality formats.
I see no reason for this trend to change, and no indication that it is changing, unfortunately.
-
^ agreed. heck, i can hear the difference, and depending on what you want it for, the ability to store more songs, even at a lower rate, is useful. I used to listen to my minidisc player (on stock earphones :lol: :oops: ) walking over to university. with the sound of the traffic etc., it didn't matter that the quality was lower. i don't really have a problem with the "ease of use" criteria for situations like that- the ability to store more is more useful than a slightly higher quality.
as i said before, it's the people who can't hear a difference when they're sitting in their living room and swear blind that it sounds as good... that's what's ruining the market, not the people buying it for convenience (which is fair enough, if you ask me). :)
-
I'm wondering if, as the technology grows and prices comes down, Bluray will overtake CD?
If CD can store 74 minutes of 16 bit 44 khz music, and has an 800mb capacity (?), then Blu-ray, at 50 gb, could store 8 CDs at studio quality 24 bit 192 khz. In the future, you could even get blu ray storing 90 minutes of 32 bit at 1.2 mhz, once studio recording caught up.
This would be too High fidelity to tell the difference from vinyl, and also wouldn't compress every time the disc was spun.
Personally, I listen to 192 khz on my iPod, it's the only way I can fit all my music on. I have found that some tracks I used to love never get heard because they're poor quality, for example hells bells: The rest of the album is 192, but having just this one (not sure how) at 128 means those glorious tolls sound like rain-sticks, spoiling the whole lot.
MP3 has emerged through convenience. in 10 years when we're all on 1gb/sec internet and a nano-sized mp3 player can have a terabyte hard drive, The default format will have gained quality accordingly.
I dont agree.
I hope youre right, but thats not how this is playing out and I dont see a reason for it to change.
Talk to most people, without sounding like too much of a tw@t, but by that I basically mean people that you arent going to find on a forum for handmade guitar pickups, if you see what I mean, and they think that MP3 is fine; they can maybe hear a difference but they dont care. What they want from new products is to get more songs on it, for it to be smaller, for it to be prettier, for it to have more peripheral functions, for the interface to be smoother/flashier and so on and so forth. I mean, most people are listening to ipods on stock earbuds: they obviously arent too concerned about quality.
So in the future we're going to have very much what we have now: most people, and therefore the driving force of the market, not really too concerned about sound quality that want big capacity to have lots of stuff on it, but wont use most of the space, in a small unit that looks cool and sounds ok, and a few that will use that space to store a lower number of higher quality formats.
I see no reason for this trend to change, and no indication that it is changing, unfortunately.
very good point there! totally agree with you. I would add to that is Blue Ray ever going to take off? I have my doubts.
-
Cheers guys
-
I would add to that is Blue Ray ever going to take off? I have my doubts.
I had very strong doubts too, but with HD-DVD (almost) out of the picture there's one less obstacle, so I think Blu-ray will take off. Especially since every PS3 is a Blu-ray player too, and (I assume) most new TVs now being sold are HD ready.
HD broadcasting hasn't really taken off in the UK yet, but it has in the USA so it'll become established soon enough. And once we're watching broadcast TV in HD, even the nearly-blind and totally stupid won't be happy with standard definition DVD any more.
The only thing threatening Blu-ray then will be movie downloads, but I think that's still a little way off.
-
Blu-Ray is a stopgap until downloadable movies becomes commonplace.
VUDU is probably going to be the first real piece of convergence gear due to its networking strength* and low price. :)
*Edit: By network strength, I mean in the business sense, not the tech sense.
-
even the nearly-blind and totally stupid won't be happy with standard definition DVD any more.
did you have to make it so personal, philly? :oops: :lol:
-
even the nearly-blind and totally stupid won't be happy with standard definition DVD any more.
did you have to make it so personal, philly? :oops: :lol:
:lol: :lol: I could say "if the cap fits", Dave, but that would make it sound like it really was aimed at you!
I expect Ben's right about downloadable movies, Blu-ray will probably be relatively short-lived. But somebody has to make all those movies available for download, which will take a long time - especially for those of us who like older movies, world cinema, non-mainstream stuff. Fine for people who like brainless Hollywood cack like Transformers. :x :roll:
Personally I dislike downloading, I like collecting material "things" and I don't really want everything I own to be on a hard drive. And downloading a movie in HD takes bloody hours, so bang goes any idea of spontaneity.
-
:D
i agree about having something tangible, i always prefer a book over a digital download, say... (though granted there's less glare from a book, so it's not solely psychological there).
and i hope you're talking about the newer transformers live action film, not the classic from the 80s. awesome soundtrack too. :D
-
and i hope you're talking about the newer transformers live action film, not the classic from the 80s. awesome soundtrack too. :D
:lol: Oh god, yes of course. Didn't it have some tracks by Spectre General, aka Kick Axe?
-
" You got the touch, you got the powwwerrrr!!!"
great soundtrack! and they used a couple of those tracks in Boogie Nights! another great movie.
-
never seen boogie nights, but yeah, it had spectre general, stan bush etc. lion did the theme tune, i think doug aldrich played on that one?
:D
-
lion did the theme tune, i think doug aldrich played on that one?
I guess so, he was certainly a member of Lion.
-
I expect Ben's right about downloadable movies, Blu-ray will probably be relatively short-lived. But somebody has to make all those movies available for download, which will take a long time - especially for those of us who like older movies, world cinema, non-mainstream stuff. Fine for people who like brainless Hollywood cack like Transformers. :x :roll:
Keep one eye on www.vudu.com and the other on www.hulu.com
-
lion did the theme tune, i think doug aldrich played on that one?
I guess so, he was certainly a member of Lion.
yeah, from what i remembered he had a credit on the writing of the theme song too (i checked... :oops: )
-
Fine for people who like brainless Hollywood cack like Transformers. :x :roll:
BIG FUCKING ROBOTS FIGHTING.
What's not to love?
-
What's not to love?
Well, the complete lack of a plot for a start. The annoying teen hero (also the "star" of super-lame teen thriller Disturbia and the new Indiana Jones travesty). The lame attempts at comedy (including an astoundingly ill-judged conversation about wanking which must have launched a great many awkward conversations between parents and their 8-year-olds). The hide-behind-your-fingers embarrassing performance of once-respected actor John Turturro (they must have paid him a lot).
But mostly the fact that it's so incompetently directed that you can't actually see the BIG F*CKING ROBOTS FIGHTING. The human soldiers charge around on motorbikes and things, shouting rubbish at each other, in a seemingly totally random manner. When one of the good robots "dies" at the end I (a) hadn't noticed when he got injured and (b) had no fecking clue who he was or if I'd ever seen him before.
To quote from a most excellent review:
"Imagine you took apart a whole bunch of cars, mixed the parts up and welded them all together into a giant ball maybe 15 or 20 feet in diameter, then rolled it down a hill. Shoot that in closeup and you got every fight scene in this movie."