I have 2 older ipods (gen 5 and gen 5.5) and I use winamp to manage my music and I put photos on/off it using windows explorer in disc mode. I am not sure if it supports all new models or not but you can download ml_ipod plugin that claims to support the 120Gb version.@Starhalo: I've got an iPod, so I'm familiar with the connector. I haven't been that fond of having to use iTune as the interface to get files on and off of it, with the odd exception of getting photos off of it. I also have a little Sansa Clip mp3 player & radio that acts as a simple USB peripheral and is so much easier to deal with.
To the credit of the iPod and the Sansa Clip, they really don't sound bad when using good headphones. It seems to be better than what I get when using bluetooth to link to my stereo. .. oh... I should mention that I did buy a little bluetooth receiver gadget, which might be the one that you recommended. Kinda handy, but the bluetooth range is limited enough to be problematic in my typical use. The sound is a bit compromised too, at least that's my impression. I've started to just put CD's in my player, which does sound better, and helps justify keeping the CD player around.
As for bluetooth speakers, I recently obtained a Bose BT speaker as a retirement gift. It is the Bose SoundLink mini speaker. For the size, the sound is very good! It looks like it retails for $200, which I wouldn't have spent on it, but that probably say more about me than the speaker. When using it, I'm more likely to use it to listen to a podcast than to music, though.
For me, a lot of the issue is that I'm more likely to listen to an interesting program on NPR (or podcast) than to listen to music. If I'm doing something that requires focus, the NPR program ends up as background noise in much the same way that music would. When I do listen to music, it is often as a background activity. It seems rare that I take the time to just listen to music (and not do anything else at the same time) in the way that I did in my youth.
Have we witnessed the death of the audiophile? ...
- Thread starter cmeisenzahl
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
StarHalo
Flashaholic
Upgrade: Building up the headphone industrial complex; I didn't think there'd be this many wires..
Last edited:
My set up is fairly simple, since I don't have too much time to read about audio hardware, it gets complicated and people like to throw around words and abbreviations I have to constantly google.
So I went with a stereo with the least amount of buttons haha.
It basically just has input, power and volume on the face.
On the back panel, there's ports for 2 speakers, and a few inputs and outputs. Most stereos have 100s of buttons ports etc.
Plus I got a bluetooth adapter which plays off my phone.
So I went with a stereo with the least amount of buttons haha.
It basically just has input, power and volume on the face.
On the back panel, there's ports for 2 speakers, and a few inputs and outputs. Most stereos have 100s of buttons ports etc.
Plus I got a bluetooth adapter which plays off my phone.
....... and it L@@Ks cool, Mr. Jino.
~ C.G.
~ C.G.
StarHalo
Flashaholic
The Force Awakens soundtrack LP, complete with etched "holograms" revealed with a bit of lighting when played:
So I was used to mp3 fidelity but my work truck did not have a 3.5" jack so I went back to cd's and man what a difference. Now I'm using an old android phone no longer in service to pump bluetooth to the truck and except for a few songs here and there the fidelity is pretty bad. Little to no sound stage with most of the songs playing. I tuned the fader and right/left to where all 4 speakers are at about the same volume but it's like listening to mono coming at me from 4 directions.
Thing I ask the youngsters for a work around for adapting a 3.5" jack to a USB plug and they all say "just use bluetooth". Sadly it seems as though they don't even know what high fidelity even sounds like. All they've ever heard is wav files compressed to mp3 then squashed through bluetooth. Heck even my cassette player sounds better than that.
Thing I ask the youngsters for a work around for adapting a 3.5" jack to a USB plug and they all say "just use bluetooth". Sadly it seems as though they don't even know what high fidelity even sounds like. All they've ever heard is wav files compressed to mp3 then squashed through bluetooth. Heck even my cassette player sounds better than that.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
For me the issue with bluetooth isn't so much the quality hit as the multiple-choice reliability. There's a probability that it will fail to connect, randomly disconnect, lose pairing. Many devices also present the multiple volume dials problem where both source and destination control volume - sensible when using a minimal headseat that only has a crude volume control if any, infuriating if you're using a head unit with its own volume controls.
I'll use bluetooth in the car very occasionally to get around a weird design flaw I've encountered in two different vehicles now where the 3.5mm line in jack suffers terrible interference whenever charging the device with a cigarette lighter adaptor - and even then mostly just to listen to podcasts where the audio quality isn't as important.
I have a Kenwood bluetooth car stereo (aftermarket) and it works flawlessly. I've had a problem on occasion where I had to turn the stereo off to get it to connect (reset) but I think that was because of trying to start the car several times. 99.9% of the time it streams bluetooth automatically and flawlessly and it even has software to improve MP3 quality in the car stereo. You can hit forward back and pause buttons while streaming from my phone on the car stereo and it displays the song title and artist or title/album or other info choices.
EXACTLY. Many don't understand compression ( maybe they think its something to do with a car engine, or something else as equally obscure..... ), they also seem happy with 64 - 128kbps. Quality from most streamers standard services and FM radio etc. They dont understand the renewed interest in vinyl, or what odd and even order distortion is. They wouldnt pay for ' Premium, HiFi or Lossless ' streaming. But then, there's nothing worse or more grating than an audiophile who insists their system is the greatest, and everyone else's approach to it is on the wrong path. I guess the old saying ' The right system is the one that sounds best to your ears ' still holds true.
While this is great
its not to say this is wrong
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...P.VkETy0utybTO4nrxMWLL4wHaGx&mediaurl=https:%
Still fun showing a non torchaholic what a real torch can do though, and, extrapolating that fun to audio, within a VERY limited budget, what uncompressed music sounds like.
I would also mention that if you have junk at the source then you would expect either compressed or uncompressed junk out of the system.
And so many recordings are just junk at the source that I really don"t see much sense in investing so much effort in the system.
I used to be a videophile and at some point of time I got a top laserdisk player (cld-97) and top videoprocessor (crystalio ii) just to watch a rare Japanese star wars laserdisk which was the best source for the original trilogy at that time. And now what? Now I am happy to watch movies on my old 24" monitor.
Content is what really matters, that is my understanding now.
And so many recordings are just junk at the source that I really don"t see much sense in investing so much effort in the system.
I used to be a videophile and at some point of time I got a top laserdisk player (cld-97) and top videoprocessor (crystalio ii) just to watch a rare Japanese star wars laserdisk which was the best source for the original trilogy at that time. And now what? Now I am happy to watch movies on my old 24" monitor.
Content is what really matters, that is my understanding now.
Wow, that was commitment. Yeah, things change, we change, etc etc. I tend to like the way in which the audio is produced, from a hark back to earlier times. Others, from a single chip.......all good. Its funny to go onto an audiophile forum, and watch all the butthurt from some audiophiles ( not all, most are very dedicated and passionate about their hobby/lifestyle ) who believe their way is the only way. Or that you have to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of $$$ to enjoy lossless quality audio. Who's to say that audio the way that we perceive it isnt on its way out, and that compression is the way of the future. That content is all that matters, not reproduction of. Maybe the audiophile is getting rather long in the tooth...... Haha, sorry for the ramble.
If one has never experienced the sound of faithfully reproduced music heard in "the sweet spot" between a good sounding set of speakers from a good sounding source then one would not understand what all the fuss is about. Analog medium was capable of doing a pretty good job of sounding pretty similar to the real thing.
Digital came along and the masses flocked to that. To the audiophile it was like fingernails on a chalk board with all that boosted bass and treble. The sound waves cut like sharp glass to the ears of the audiophile. While the crowd shouted "more more more" as in decibels from their $99 Circuit City bought compact disc player the audiophile was content with a reel to reel recording much like the music studio where the original material was recorded.
Some say the tranistor began the demise of the audiophile recording. Tube equipment does have a warmth to it not achieved by the solid state equipment but to me the tube equipment sounds a little flat after a while. Probably because I grew up listening to solid state equipment so the old Macintosh tube amp sounds a bit foreign to my brain.
They had compression back then. It was called Dolby. Some used DBX, which became like the Beta Max. Far superior noise reduction but never caught on and disappeared. With digital there was no compression needed. The cd player did not have the equivelent of PWM to the discerning masses. "No more hiss, yay!" they shouted. The issue for the audiophile was not the lack of hiss but the conversion from digital to analog. The more times a computer attempted to convert it the worse it sounded to the audiophile. Many companies touted "15x, 20x, 25x" conversion rates. To the ears of the audiophile it was like going from 200 grit to 2000 grit sandpaper.
Those were dark times for the audiophile. Companies like Nakamichi and Teac were producing some pretty good sounding cassette recorders while Maxell was producing some pretty good blank tapes. So one could record that fragile vinyl album after playing it once to make sure no skips occured and stash that precious disk in pristine condition for the eventual day the cassette tape failed. Albums were made of plastic and the record player used a diamond tip needle to scratch the sound from the vinyl medium. But now it looked as if the cassette medium would be replaced with that ridiculous digital thing. Folks like me stocked up on blank cassettes, bought replacement tips for our record player "stylus" and stored that precious vinyl like cigar officiandos or wine connesuers.
Then arrived the day that the digital medium had realized the err of its way and had come up with much smoother digital to analog conversions. Less was more. Instead of 25x now it was 1 or 2x. Some audiophiles made the move to digital after that. It was a compromise many could live with. The modern WAV won't so harsh anymore. But then came the MP3. Oh no here we go again. But just like Stereo Review had predicted, one could store 100 songs on a chip the size of a thumbnail. To the purist this was terrible. To the music industry it was death by a thousand cuts. Napster had the sword. Suddenly downloads became the way to acquire music. File sizes were reduced to ensure faster downloads when DSL was king. A whole generation had never experienced the full on fidelity of a live concert album.
You don't miss what you never knew existed. Now those folks have kids. The iPod has been replaced with streaming. A 128gb micro SD card can be had for $25 at Wal Mart. When grandpa grabs one to go in his Sandisk MP3 player the 12 year old grandson says "what's that for grandpa?"
I still have a Bang & Olufsen belt drive turntable, a few albums and a Yamaha pre-amp/power amp combo and Klipsch Hershey 2 speakers stashed away but as time marched on I used it less and less. All I listen to now are 320 sized MP3 files converted from CD's on a set of satelite speakers, bluetooth to my car or for my "audiophile" experience 2020 style some Shure ear buds. Some days I splurge and listen to the full range CD in my truck remembering when this was a reduction in fidelity. Compromise? For sure. But to some of us audiophiles convenience has its merits too.
Are we near the death of the audiophile? Probably not. If you have $32 grand to plunk down on a set of speakers chances are good you don't get your music streamed from Pandora.
Digital came along and the masses flocked to that. To the audiophile it was like fingernails on a chalk board with all that boosted bass and treble. The sound waves cut like sharp glass to the ears of the audiophile. While the crowd shouted "more more more" as in decibels from their $99 Circuit City bought compact disc player the audiophile was content with a reel to reel recording much like the music studio where the original material was recorded.
Some say the tranistor began the demise of the audiophile recording. Tube equipment does have a warmth to it not achieved by the solid state equipment but to me the tube equipment sounds a little flat after a while. Probably because I grew up listening to solid state equipment so the old Macintosh tube amp sounds a bit foreign to my brain.
They had compression back then. It was called Dolby. Some used DBX, which became like the Beta Max. Far superior noise reduction but never caught on and disappeared. With digital there was no compression needed. The cd player did not have the equivelent of PWM to the discerning masses. "No more hiss, yay!" they shouted. The issue for the audiophile was not the lack of hiss but the conversion from digital to analog. The more times a computer attempted to convert it the worse it sounded to the audiophile. Many companies touted "15x, 20x, 25x" conversion rates. To the ears of the audiophile it was like going from 200 grit to 2000 grit sandpaper.
Those were dark times for the audiophile. Companies like Nakamichi and Teac were producing some pretty good sounding cassette recorders while Maxell was producing some pretty good blank tapes. So one could record that fragile vinyl album after playing it once to make sure no skips occured and stash that precious disk in pristine condition for the eventual day the cassette tape failed. Albums were made of plastic and the record player used a diamond tip needle to scratch the sound from the vinyl medium. But now it looked as if the cassette medium would be replaced with that ridiculous digital thing. Folks like me stocked up on blank cassettes, bought replacement tips for our record player "stylus" and stored that precious vinyl like cigar officiandos or wine connesuers.
Then arrived the day that the digital medium had realized the err of its way and had come up with much smoother digital to analog conversions. Less was more. Instead of 25x now it was 1 or 2x. Some audiophiles made the move to digital after that. It was a compromise many could live with. The modern WAV won't so harsh anymore. But then came the MP3. Oh no here we go again. But just like Stereo Review had predicted, one could store 100 songs on a chip the size of a thumbnail. To the purist this was terrible. To the music industry it was death by a thousand cuts. Napster had the sword. Suddenly downloads became the way to acquire music. File sizes were reduced to ensure faster downloads when DSL was king. A whole generation had never experienced the full on fidelity of a live concert album.
You don't miss what you never knew existed. Now those folks have kids. The iPod has been replaced with streaming. A 128gb micro SD card can be had for $25 at Wal Mart. When grandpa grabs one to go in his Sandisk MP3 player the 12 year old grandson says "what's that for grandpa?"
I still have a Bang & Olufsen belt drive turntable, a few albums and a Yamaha pre-amp/power amp combo and Klipsch Hershey 2 speakers stashed away but as time marched on I used it less and less. All I listen to now are 320 sized MP3 files converted from CD's on a set of satelite speakers, bluetooth to my car or for my "audiophile" experience 2020 style some Shure ear buds. Some days I splurge and listen to the full range CD in my truck remembering when this was a reduction in fidelity. Compromise? For sure. But to some of us audiophiles convenience has its merits too.
Are we near the death of the audiophile? Probably not. If you have $32 grand to plunk down on a set of speakers chances are good you don't get your music streamed from Pandora.
Last edited:
" DIGITAL "
Hmmm, yeah, a word that can mean so many things, good and bad, to such a large cross section of our wonderful world.
Look where we are with it, and where would we be without it.
Hmmm, yeah, a word that can mean so many things, good and bad, to such a large cross section of our wonderful world.
Look where we are with it, and where would we be without it.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
The listening room of the ~1950s became the TV room which became the home theater room which is transitioning back to being the living room (which it always was in the first place).
The reality of music is that a commanding majority of the market seems to have experienced it primarily on the go for >20 years. Hi-fi setups were quickly subordinated to home theater, itself seemingly fallout out of fashion with the masses largely content with a big screen 'smart' TV and a sound bar. Music is consumed during one's commute or during the workday - other times are largely incidental. Myself, if I'm going to sit down at home and be entertained, I generally sit in front of a screen and watch something; on the odd chance I want to listen to music I generally break out the headphones and plug in my phone (3.5mm jack > Bluetooth reliability, quality).
Can I tell the difference between a 128kbs MP3 and a 320kbps MP3? Absolutely, on any equipment under almost any conditions. 320kbps MP3 and the source CD? Sure - with the right kind of music, some careful A/B testing, and some good headphones. Heck - I should just rip FLAC since device space isn't so much of an issue anymore.
The reality of music is that a commanding majority of the market seems to have experienced it primarily on the go for >20 years. Hi-fi setups were quickly subordinated to home theater, itself seemingly fallout out of fashion with the masses largely content with a big screen 'smart' TV and a sound bar. Music is consumed during one's commute or during the workday - other times are largely incidental. Myself, if I'm going to sit down at home and be entertained, I generally sit in front of a screen and watch something; on the odd chance I want to listen to music I generally break out the headphones and plug in my phone (3.5mm jack > Bluetooth reliability, quality).
Can I tell the difference between a 128kbs MP3 and a 320kbps MP3? Absolutely, on any equipment under almost any conditions. 320kbps MP3 and the source CD? Sure - with the right kind of music, some careful A/B testing, and some good headphones. Heck - I should just rip FLAC since device space isn't so much of an issue anymore.
Katherine Alicia
Enlightened
A lot of todays tracks are ruined before they even become available and it`s done at the mastering stage, they compress and EQ the life out of it chasing Ideal rather than Real.
I take great care to record at 96k 24 bit and export as WAV (uncompressed), there`s no "mastering" stage for me, what you hear is what came out of my speakers when I made it.
But then you upload it Youtube or something and they compress the life out of it, or you give to a "professional" for mastering and you won`t even recognise afterwards (and not in a good way).
So even with best Hi-Fi system in the world, it`ll never sound as good as it did in the studio anymore
I take great care to record at 96k 24 bit and export as WAV (uncompressed), there`s no "mastering" stage for me, what you hear is what came out of my speakers when I made it.
But then you upload it Youtube or something and they compress the life out of it, or you give to a "professional" for mastering and you won`t even recognise afterwards (and not in a good way).
So even with best Hi-Fi system in the world, it`ll never sound as good as it did in the studio anymore
raggie33
*the raggedier*
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2003
- Messages
- 13,699
Inever mind
raggie33
*the raggedier*
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2003
- Messages
- 13,699
Is this decent? The amp not speakers https://photos.app.goo.gl/pQaE3E35T6CV5TxU7
I don't disagree with you here. Some of my work was on audio and video compression algorithms and you have hit a sweet spot for both sound capture and reproduction compatibility.A lot of todays tracks are ruined before they even become available and it`s done at the mastering stage, they compress and EQ the life out of it chasing Ideal rather than Real.
I take great care to record at 96k 24 bit and export as WAV (uncompressed), there`s no "mastering" stage for me, what you hear is what came out of my speakers when I made it.
But then you upload it Youtube or something and they compress the life out of it, or you give to a "professional" for mastering and you won`t even recognise afterwards (and not in a good way).
So even with best Hi-Fi system in the world, it`ll never sound as good as it did in the studio anymore
If audiophile was synonymous with a direct drive turn table and a reel to reel tape deck, I am glad to see them go.
With a flagship phone from five years ago, a high quality WAV or FLAC file, and headphones of my choosing, I can listen to music reproduced better than anything that I could have on my dad's sprawling analog system.
And I can carry it with me on the subway.
Sent from my LG-V520 using Tapatalk
