why can't they all give audio samples like SD?

[yeti]

I want that full dynamic range of 80dB of a symphonic orchestra intact on my CDs please!! Instead they choose to compress the dynamic range for the average consumer, don't they?

Just when audio was battling over DVD-A vs Super Audio CD, the MP3, downloads and iPod came along to render the marketability of high-fi digital phyical media nil.

The CD is expected to pass away within a year, and only special editions of CDs will be manufacture, so if I want new music, I will have to download it. I hope the new music will easily be available in lossless WAV formats, and not only in the Itunes MP3 versions.

No I did not mean to imply that a guitar amp capable of 120 dB has a 120 dB dynamic range, yes I agree about the noise floor.

The average consumer has different priorities when listening to music, question #1 is"Can I download it for free?"
Seriously , it depends on the situation. 80 dB of range might be great for an aficionado listening to a CD at concert levels and has enough space between him and his neighbors but other situations dictate other approaches. These days I mix for TV for a living and I can't allow for that range in my mixes because of delivery specs set by non-music people as well as end users' viewing habits. Personally I'm fine with the dynamic range of analog tape w/o noise reduction for capture as well as Vinyl for release but that's just me. I love the old classical recordings from the 50's and 60's, done with then new superior mic technology and analog tape.

 

[River]

Quite an education for me here; please keep it coming.

In my layman's mind, that there is all this technical stuff to debate answers the original question quite plainly. I'll not be basing my purchase decisions on YouTube videos.

 

[Dave1968]

My ears can tell the frequencies that I like; without sound clips compressed or limited I have no real way to hear them. I really don't have the time to visit music stores, though I'd like to!

All my life i was wondering what that great sound was i heard every now and then.. even some songs I didn't really like but digged the guitars tone. It was a Fender '57 Deluxe. Youtube has thousands of vintage, original and clone Deluxes and there ain't that much between most of them through a tv with cinema surround, headphones, laptop crappy speakers or 5.1 other pc surround, it conveys the same message with different eq.

I bought a clone from a very experienced amp/cab maker; it did not disappoint!

I listen to audio clips and usually they give the rig; Vibrolux, AC15 or 30, Plexi etc.. it helps. I know what ticks and what doesn't to my preference based on the info given. It helps me alot. You will only get your 'Pure' in your own happy environment. We're all different. A little EQ makes a huge difference.

How many people thought Another Brick in the wall pt2 solo was on a Strat or Oh Well was on a '59 LP!? Perception and reality can really be so different.

I prefer analogue whether it be synths, sampling or vinyl over digital or FM. Gotta move with the times I guess.

FWIW I hate how winders put there name on the front of their Pups too....

Great debate!

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

The average consumer has different priorities when listening to music, question #1 is"Can I download it for free?"
Seriously , it depends on the situation. 80 dB of range might be great for an aficionado listening to a CD at concert levels and has enough space between him and his neighbors but other situations dictate other approaches. These days I mix for TV for a living and I can't allow for that range in my mixes because of delivery specs set by non-music people as well as end users' viewing habits. Personally I'm fine with the dynamic range of analog tape w/o noise reduction for capture as well as Vinyl for release but that's just me. I love the old classical recordings from the 50's and 60's, done with then new superior mic technology and analog tape.

You are absolutely right. Damn average consumers. And I do not think music should be downloaded for free. And TV has to be severly compressed so people can hear the dialogue. In fact, I have trouble hearing some conversations in movies these days, because HDTV has TOO much dynamic range for dialogue sometimes for my old ears. And I do not want to turn it up to the point where the sound effects become so overwhelming.

And I HATE the sound they add to motion that would not have sound in nature, just to startle the audience. Startling is such a cheap trick. (South Park had an episode on that)

And YES! The RCA Classical two and three track TRUE Stereo recordings of the 50s are sooooo natural sounding to me.

 

[C Squared]

while there is a LOT of useful information here to be gained, and for that I am most appreciative, it also seemed to turn into a pissing contest, and not one that I would expect.

Expected

Brand A sucks!!!! You'll only realize tonefull bliss if you use Brand D !!!!

WHAT?!?!? BRAND D sounds like burnt toast being scraped. What you need is Brand X

instead we have some in depth discussion on the decline of audio quality.

Interesting how fast these threads can morph into something totally unexpected...

 

[yeti]

In short - not all CD's are equal. And that's before you've put them in a CD player. And they still sound loads better than anything on MP3 to me...

LIam

A lot of what you're saying deserves closer examination, but let me also clarify that I'm not saying mp3 sounds great, it's more complicated than that. I've recorded music that encodes very well and i've recorded music that falls apart even at 320kbits/s. Again, resolution is the key here. Picture an video clip of a person in front of a flat monochromatic wall. Now imagine what differentiates the first frame of video against the second and so forth. It's easy to understand why this clip can be data compressed very aggressively because a huge portion of the image doesn't change and doesn't have detail. Now move the person outside in front of a tree filled with leaves moving in a moderate breeze. Now what data/ parts of each frame can you dispose of w/o being noticed?
The point is that much of the music being sold today sounds almost , if not as good on mp3 as it does uncompressed because the content lacks detail/ resolution ( that's what Bob Dylan was complaining about). Uncompressed digital audio can offer the best specs on resolution and dynamic range but that's not relevant anymore because listening conventions have moved away from traditional parameters of quality altogether. despite this I'm still frequently blown away by the quality of audio I encounter in film, TV and recorded music.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

In short, you cannot make chicken soup out of chickensh1t.

 

[Liam]

Liam, didn't know you were a fellow audiophile. I have owned a couple of Nak's.

Not really an audiophile as much as just someone that likes to hear good music on a reasonable system. Fortunately a lot of equipment that was way out of my league in the 80s is surprisingly cheap to buy used nowadays.

Liam

 

[refin]

Whenever I put on a good pressing of an LP,it absolutely destroys any CD I have.
Back to the issue of pickup demo files--
Unless they are really poorly recorded (as some videos are),I can usually tell if it is something I would like.You learn to gauge the players touch if it is a good video.Too many demos are done with too much distortion,which to me,makes all pups sound the same...it just levels out all differences.I remember getting my first pair of DiMarzio Super Distortion pups back in the mid '70s....cranked,they flowed.Clean,they sounded like cardboard.
The simpler the signal path,the better.It's frustrating when I try to watch an amp demo on youtube and the guy is running through a pedalboard,ect.!