A very interesting article about the rising preference for the sound of an mp3 among young(er) people.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-si ... music.html
And another that takes a decidedly less optimistic view...
http://i.gizmodo.com/5166649/ipods-and- ... oyed-music
--Stan Graves
Do people prefer the sound of mp3's?
Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy
-
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:27 pm
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
- Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Given the way a lot of young people listen to music (bass cranked way up) in tandem with stereo equipment marketing that promotes strong bass and a general preference for music with heavy bass, it's more that people just don't care to notice the difference. Both articles suggest listeners are willing to trade quality for convenience and low cost.
I'm not sure I agree that the artifacts of iPod/MP3 quality/compression are desirable. Given that a lot of popular music is created with electronic instruments (keyboards/synthesizers, electric guitars/bass, drum machines, etc.), perhaps its the artificial nature that is familiar. I can almost always tell a synthesized piano from a real one but many people insist they can't tell a difference.
The one thing I disagree with is the second article claiming that it will be the downfall of music. The fact that a lot of listeners are content with generational loss of dubbing audio tape and that AM radio is only 10kHz bandwidth and FM radio/TV audio is 15kHz so the benchmark of is already relatively low.
I'm not sure I agree that the artifacts of iPod/MP3 quality/compression are desirable. Given that a lot of popular music is created with electronic instruments (keyboards/synthesizers, electric guitars/bass, drum machines, etc.), perhaps its the artificial nature that is familiar. I can almost always tell a synthesized piano from a real one but many people insist they can't tell a difference.
The one thing I disagree with is the second article claiming that it will be the downfall of music. The fact that a lot of listeners are content with generational loss of dubbing audio tape and that AM radio is only 10kHz bandwidth and FM radio/TV audio is 15kHz so the benchmark of is already relatively low.
Has anyone ever listed to satellite radio? I've never heard it myself, but wiki says it's 128 kbps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio
-
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:27 pm
I have listened to XM. It is certainly better than FM, and not as good as a CD. But, it was in someone else's car...so I was not accustomed to their car stereo anyway. It was difficult to make any more detailed judgments.Surreal wrote:Has anyone ever listed to satellite radio? I've never heard it myself, but wiki says it's 128 kbps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio
Even the HD radio stations in my area are only broadcasting music that is 128kbps quality. The HD signal can certainly carry more information, they are choosing not to use that (for whatever reason). Even so, it is still noticeably better than FM.