Steve Jobs - Vinyl better than iPod

Exactly what I previously mentioned. That makes the difference. One is just sound (to put it lightly), the MP3, and the other one contains the information (the bits).

The information (the bits) isn't there for the looks. Have you ever tried converting to MP3 and then revert the process? Have you ever heard the result?

Just because most people won't know the difference between one and the other, using their daily devices, that doesn't mean that an audiophile won't (someone with proper sound equipment).

I notice the difference when playing the same musics - the original CD and a recorded one using MP3 version. The sound simply sucks, and simply because the information lacks (thus less quality).

Lossless audio formats will compress the data (the bits) exactly as they are, thust keeping the sound quality; lossy formats won't, thus loosing sound quality.

For some reason they're called lossy. Otherwise, there would be no point calling them such, if there was no loss in quality. There would be no point in having lossless formats either, because it would all be the same.

 

Exactly. Poor electronics (cheap amplifiers, digital media players, even #18 lamp cord for speaker cables ) will make it even harder to tell the difference because of the distortion they introduce and dynamic range they rob from the recording, making even a superior quality recording sound similar to an mp3 recording. I'm not an audiophile, never was, but years ago I used a Perreaux pre-amp with a Dave Belles 400 power amp (true, 200w rms/ch), Rotel dual D/A converter cd player, nice interconnects and Mordaunt Short speakers. Not exactly a top end system, but a definite difference maker compared to the big store, mass produced junk that use tin plated, spring loaded connectors and all "lightweight" electronics. Superior electronics introduce far less noise and other problems such as slew rate deficiencies into the music than cheaper electronics do.

 

not to rub anyone the wrong way, but if I could not tell the difference
of the sound from CD and a MP3 I would be going to have my ears checked
I 'm sitting here with a Ad-com Preamp and a Carver Power Amp
driving a set of Cerwin Vega Speakers, and more hooked up to my computer
and I'm 60 years old, when my son seen it he just started laughing he never
seen such a hookup on a computer before, this thing will really rock the house
if I crank it up and a real CD or Flac file is like a night and day difference

 

You guys are all comparing equipment not the actual audio files.

Play a 320kbps MP3 on that $20,000 system and play a vinyl on the same system. You will not hear a difference.

 

Reputable test results from experts on hi fidelity:

-http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

 

It's a pity that more people never get the chance to ever hear a top HiFi system If they did, unless they were deaf, i guarantee they would hear what the've been misssing for years The thing is, once they did that, they would never be happy with what they have @ the moment. But hopefully they could begin to improve & upgrade as funds permit.

Apart from $ etc it all depends on how much someone is Really into Music. For some it's only background audio wallpaper, so mp3 etc will do for them Even so, if they ever do listen to a truly decent system, it should change their outlook once & for all.

Convenience is one thing, but doesn't make it a Great experience.

 

It seems like everyone seems to be saying it's both. If you use a high def system + lossy compression it's going ot be degraded. If you use low-tier system + lossless compression it's goin to be degraded. If you want quality you need both.

 

I said it in my last most and I'll say it again: unless you have actually performe a double-blind listening test your words mean nothing.

If you have the money to buy such an equipment, then you should have the money and time to set up such a test. And if you have any shred of dignity you owe it to yourself to actually perform the test.
However, if you write off ABX-testing without even considering it, then you are just an every-day audio snob who's afraid to face reality and probably would do the world a favor if he hung himself on his high-end magic speaker cable.

As far as the topic goes, so Steve Jobs was a hypocrite. What a shock this is! One would think that the president of a company that has a strict non-transparent approach to security, and is basically in denial about most/any problems with its products, and produces some of the most overhyped and overpriced devices in the world, etc. would be an honest and open guy.
Yeah, right...

 

From an engineering point of view, semiconductor devices are more precise for signal reproduction. However, vacuum tubes do tend to deal with noise a little better. The perceived "harshness" of semiconductor amplifiers is probably because of the sharp frequency response compared to a vacuum tube amplifier which has a more gradual shift if you were to make a graph of the frequency response.

We now have lossless compression formats and high bitrates mean that losses, if any, are restricted. This by itself should not change the quality of audio. The perceived differences appear to be down to fidelity, sensitivity and frequency response (note that theoretically semiconductor devices are better on this front).

 

Bang on the money, Cloneranger!

Yep, agreed.

Too funny. Stereophile already provides a real, reputable test, that completely supports what I've maintained.

 

I dont care what anyone in here says. Ive been in this field for quite some time. Ive got hands on experience with hi def car audio. Its not the same, but the same equations and science applies.

And this.

 

All they did was testing. They did absolutely no listening. They are basing their conclusions off of the graphs. That doesnt mean anything. Just because the graphs are different doesnt mean there is an audible difference which is the basis of this argument.

 

Regarding testing: Scientific testing means comparing frequency response of the signal, but this does not guarantee the device sounds better. This is because the human ear (IMO) seems to prefer a gradual frequency change to sharp ones (this is because of the induced neural response from such changes). Hence, some people prefer tube amps.

Yes, good equipment can make a difference. Bad cables, poor electronics, etc. are all factors. Even lossless formats like FLAC are digitally compressed files that need to go through a DAC at some point. So yes, a good DAC will make a difference.

However, regardless of equipment, ABX testing done on the same hardware should reach the same conclusions, provided the equipment is of high enough standard to accurately portray differences. Such testing can be further backed by using tools like RightMark Audio Analyzer, for example.

Listening, however, also depends on the sensitivity of the human ear to the nth harmonic (which is different from human-to-human) and signal processing algorithms. Thus, the most accurate reproduction may not always be the most pleasing reproduction.

 

I was comparing actual audio files on the SAME equipment, Night and Day
difference from a MP3 file and a FLAC file/CD disk

 

Well I did listen. Lots. But you and especially Night Raven call my claims into question, which I take exception to. I didn't make up ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ to post.

Even with all the scientific factors notwithstanding, perhaps there's some non-scientific factors to consider as well, such as the fact that some people simply play music in the background and are "aware" it's playing, but not really listening to it. Then you have your music lovers who not only listen to it, but feel drawn into it it, experience it, so to speak. They are the ones far more likely to notice audio quality differences than the former group.

@Whitedragon,

you are probably aware that a vehicle interior's acoustic properties pretty much kill the balance and depth that the electronics could acheive in a rectangular-like room with strategically placed furniture and carpeting?

@Firecat,

thank you for your technical insight. It's appreciated

@Critter,

Nice equipment may I ask what you're playing your CD's on or do you even play CD's anymore? *Edit: never mind, you do play CD's

 

I love it! An audio (my 1st love) discussion in a computer (my 2nd love) forum.

Personally, it was no surprise to learn that Jobs appreciated uncompressed audio over compressed. The differences have always been something I could hear and definitely cared about. While he made popular, well designed products, he was a business person first and foremost and high quality music is (sadly) no longer important to the masses. Quantity (I have 10,000 songs on my iPod!!) and convenience now reign supreme.

The discussion over what is, or isn't, audible will go on forever, as long as there are those who hear differences or not, irrespective of the technical side of the argument. I believe that measurements definitely have meaning but there can still be "shades of gray" that some listeners can discern (that others cannot.)

While I have some mp3's I listen to for background music (mowing and the like), I still hate what compressed formats have done to good sound. I have the feeling we will never get back what we are losing...

 

Hmm, it looks like some people here use the music to listen to their equipment, instead of the other way round.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but did you compare? Was it a double-blind listening test or did you know which file you were listening to? If it was the latter, it means nothing.

Also, if you are willing to rely only on measurements, then you must purchase audio (and video for that matter) hardware by looking at some results on a website, without listening to it first.

Edit: And for the record: it's not what the compressed formats have done to audio. It's what bad mastering and overcompression have done to audio.

 

Well I guess some people hear different from other people, for me I will
stick with uncompressed formats and real CD's

wat0114, right now I have my regular DVD RAM Drive which is a LG
but I do have a real CD player in a box somewhere I brought this equipment
some years ago and have a lot of it boxed up just from moving and haven't
got around to installing it yet

I guess I should compare the real CD player to the drive and see if there is any difference

 

I listened with an unbiased and open mind! It might mean nothing to you, but it meant all I needed to hear to me.

Okay, I see. Depending on the optical drive, you may hear some difference but I doubt nearly as much as the difference the amplification and speaker stages make.

 

This is why I hold what you say with a grain of salt. As with anything acoustical it all comes down to implementation and placement. You can also use cabin gain and reflections to your advantage. The front stage depth in my car is huge. The music comes from beyond the outside mirrors. Ive been doing this stuff for quite some time. The only thing that makes a car different from a rectangular room is the cabin gain and vibrations, both are easily fixed with testing, sound deadener, MLV, and CCF.

 

Given the same equipment and listening envronment, I notice a difference between mp3 format and CD format. It's that simple. You can take what I say with a grain of salt, your prerogative.

That's only part of the equation, an important part I agree, but not all of it. Electronics and music source type and quality play a huge role as well.

 

Vinyl is better. All Codecs change the music. But, vinyl being analog captures what the microphones record better. The frequency range is better. There is not as much compression. The source material is what you hear. But digital when it processes the signal changes the analog to computer created dashes & Os & then must recreate again to analog. Try finding an old Marantz Receiver that is Vacuum tube driven combine that with An old Empire turntable with maybe an SME Tone Arm use a shure cartridge then list to both over some Some old KLH or Electrovoice speakers then listen to both sytems I am sure you will pick the analog System.

 

Just wow! If some of you went to a professional audio forum like HydrogenAudio they would rip you apart. Arguments such as "vinyl just sounds better" or "vinyl is supperior to CD because it's analogue", or "it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling" won't work. You would be required to provide some actual empirical evidence for your claims. It's a good thing this is a forum where proof of anything is unnecessary, someone's word is enough.

 

You are right, the "loudness wars" really have destroyed music today. What once used to be pleasant is now, well, not so much and it's not because the equipment doesn't play it back properly.

Though I have not personally made this observation, there have been too many claims of this to completely discount it. Like I said, every pair of ears is different since no human is exactly the same.

If I'd have to take analogies, I guess the best bet would be allergenic reactions and circuit noise.

For example, let's talk about industrial dust. A lot of people really don't have problems wandering through it for short durations of time. However, some people will catch a disease within a day or two of wandering through it because they are more sensitive to it (Note: Allergies by themselves are not diseases).

Or circuit noise - Noise is there even without any input voltage. In most cases you will not see it. It also affects some circuits more than it does others. If you have the equipment, you can try running two transistors of the same model and give it a similar voltage and the responses will not be exactly the same, neither will be the effect of noise.

It is perhaps possible that some ears can actually "detect" more frequencies than others, but not have enough of a response to actually "hear" something there, similar to a transistor which has reduced response at the end limits of its own frequency range. This actually provides an explanation as to why some people feel more comfortable hearing lossless compared to even high bitrate MP3s: This can mean that their ears are actually sensitive to these frequencies which are not their in lossy formats like MP3, and the absence of these frequencies cause a sharper transition which induces a harsh sensation to the ear.

To an ear that is not so sensitive, it won't make a difference either way.

Please note that the theory presented above is purely conjecture and in my knowledge has not had any scientific investigation. We will never know for sure unless someone pursues an investigation into the matter.

Also, I'm not sure how much exactly I would know about matters such as vinyl since I have not grown up in that era. In fact, I'm the only one in my entire engineering class who even knows how a tube amplifier works - most don't even know what a vacuum tube or vinyl is today. I feel the tube/vinyl vs. semiconductor debate may disappear entirely in the years to come because of the fact that tubes and vinyl are mostly ignored by the younger generation.

 

I heard about that a while back, but was under the impression it was only done for radio and television adverting. It's being done in the music industry as well? Please keep in mind I'm not too aware of this in an "audible" sense anymore after losing half my hearing years ago