Music as a Necessity

[King Cobra]

How much do you like your songs? I know if you like music a lot, you would set them to a higher bitrate when encoded to mp3, or even listen to them via CD.

So, do you find music to be a necesity for life? At what bitrate do you set your songs at?

I find music a big time need for life. When I have assignments to do in class I plug in my iPod earbuds to the drums and write away. I like my songs at 192Kbps.

[Durandal7]

Usually at 160 kbps.

[Mr. Anderson]

128 for me is the cut off. If I can get something higher, that's fine, but you can hear the difference as it starts to get below 128.

D

[sparkleytone]

i actually use variable bit rate at the highest quality setting. i prefer the LAME codec and do most of my ripping and encoding on my PC, altho iTunes is so easy I give in to it more than I'd like. If its constant bit rate, then I will accept no less than 192. I am extremely discriminating with my music and will accept no less than the best.

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
i actually use variable bit rate at the highest quality setting. i prefer the LAME codec and do most of my ripping and encoding on my PC, altho iTunes is so easy I give in to it more than I'd like. If its constant bit rate, then I will accept no less than 192. I am extremely discriminating with my music and will accept no less than the best. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You must have hearing like a dog. Which on it's own is a very good thing, but I tell you what: on a commuter train, in a car, at work or even at home the music is like a soundtrack to life. There is so much white noise and interruptions that for you to *require* 192 kbps is a bit of a snobism. A Beatles song or Flaming Lips tune sonds the same to me at 160 or 256 kpbs, because they are just good songs, period. Plus, personally I don't gain anything from longer rip times and less space on my iPod, since I am an early adopter with only 5GB.

[King Cobra]

zarathustra, that's a great point. But what about when you are alone listening to a rather fast song at higher volumes and less distraction? Then something around 192Kbps does become sort of a "requirement".

Personally, if the song is played through some quality speakers and there is little distraction from around me, I can tell whether a medium-paced song or faster is at 96Kbps, 128Kbps, 160KBps or 192Kbps. And I can't stand 128Kbps. That's why I want to avoid all the loss of quality and move on to 192Kbps.

The only files I want to keep at 128Kbps are the comedy clips for Whose Line. :D :cool:

[sparkleytone]

while my hearing is definitely not like a dog :) i indeed have an insane ear. i just hear things in music that 99.9% of people don't seem to. For example: I was at a concert with my girlfriend yesterday and an oboe quartet was playing. All the players were extremely good, as they are faculty at Eastern Music Festival. BUT...the viola was out of tune in all three movements. In the first he was flat and the second two he had tried to fix it and went sharp. It was killing me. I KNOWit was his G String (no laughs). I don't know how i just do. I had to talk to about 30 people before someone said they heard it too. He was one of the featured conductors of the festival ;)

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by King Cobra
[B
The only files I want to keep at 128Kbps are the comedy clips for Whose Line. :D :cool: [/B]

I will admit to having 96kbps Saturday Night Live sketches. "Uhhh, hello, this is the Chris Farley show.... Uhhh, d*mn, Ahh, I never know how to begin these things"

[billiam0878]

Between 160-192KBs.

Bill

[3rdpath]

i can't listen to mp3s. they all sound like crap to me-the high frequencies just get screwed up in my opinion. part of it is the cheap digital to analog converters on the mp3 players...what can you expect for a few 100$?

its the equivalent of a bad photocopy of a nice painting. don't get me wrong, i'd love to have an ipod with 20 gigs of my favorite tunes...but until the quality of the format rises above a bad cassette tape-i'll just sit this one out.

[job]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
but until the quality of the format rises above a bad cassette tape-i'll just sit this one out.

Waiting for mp4 support in a future iTunes update are we? :D :D

[mac15]

I used to do 192k but now I use 160, its nice you can't tell so who cares

[iGav]

with me it actually depends....... normally I just keep it at 160....... although certain music with lots of depth etc like Portishead for instance I boost it........ as you can tell the difference on certain songs........

[SilvorX]

192 or sometimes 160 since usually i can hear the sound crappyness if i have sound settings on 128 or less..
wma = crud to me, tried ripping a cd to wma n it sounded kinda like a bad quality mp3 :S hmm...

[Edge100]

192kbps...because it will suffice for almost anything. You CAN tell the difference when your equipment is good.

For example, I was listening to the "OK Computer" CD at work the other day on a Sony portable stereo. It sounded ok. But I just recently ripped that CD (192) and I listened to it yesterday on my home system and the mp3 sounded much better.

Point: it really is dependant on your equipment. If you've got a crappy system, 128kbps is fine. I use 192kbps so the mp3s should sound good on pretty much all but the best systems.

[AmbitiousLemon]

i ripped mosy of mine at 192 but some of the bands (mostly classical, industrial, and portishead) didnt sound so good at that quality so i ripped those at 320 with variable bit on. imported a few of my songs with aac and 92kbs seems to suffice. first album i ripped was metallica's black album. **** Lars! :) ;)

[Zenith]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
while my hearing is definitely not like a dog :) i indeed have an insane ear. i just hear things in music that 99.9% of people don't seem to. For example: I was at a concert with my girlfriend yesterday and an oboe quartet was playing. All the players were extremely good, as they are faculty at Eastern Music Festival. BUT...the viola was out of tune in all three movements. In the first he was flat and the second two he had tried to fix it and went sharp. It was killing me. I KNOWit was his G String (no laughs). I don't know how i just do. I had to talk to about 30 people before someone said they heard it too. He was one of the featured conductors of the festival ;)

That's great! It sounds like you've got an absolute hearing (if that's what it's called) and that you're able to identify the pitch of a tone. For example, if you hear a tone you can tell that it is a "G" or "A" or whatever, without hearing any reference tone in advance.

I've got an absolute hearing myself, and it's extremely few who have it. Either it's a trained hearing or you're borned with it. Many people believe that everyone is borned with it, but that almost everyone gradually loses it. I don't know what to believe, but I think my hearing is mostly trained...

<on-topic> As for MP3 quality, I can't stand anything lower than 196 kbps. Even 160 leeds to serious quality loss, especially in the treble area. At 196 kbps the stereo loss is the most annoying. I'm not a huge fan of MP3 quality, but rather the file size. It's really nice to be able to keep about a thousand songs on my iPod. </on-topic>

[sparkleytone]

well...in the US we call it "perfect pitch" and i do NOT have it actually. I believe that it IS something I can develop tho'. I have no formal musical background or experience up until about 3 years ago. I have only now really delved into the depths of classical training and have yet to leverage my talents in any manner that acceptably reflects my talents. I am thinking that in about 3 yrs, after 6 semesters of piano, ear training, theory, etc that I will have developed my ear into perfect pitch or extreme relative pitch.

[Edge100]

well...in the US we call it "perfect pitch" and i do NOT have it actually. I believe that it IS something I can develop tho'. I have no formal musical background or experience up until about 3 years ago. I have only now really delved into the depths of classical training and have yet to leverage my talents in any manner that acceptably reflects my talents. I am thinking that in about 3 yrs, after 6 semesters of piano, ear training, theory, etc that I will have developed my ear into perfect pitch or extreme relative pitch.

I think it can be taught. I dont have it, but at times, I feel like I do. From what I hear (no pun intended), the key is to "hear" the way a sound "looks", as if it has a colour. Bb becomes "orange", F# is "pink", and so forth. You know the colours because you see them all the time and from an early age, you learn them. But people dont usually learn the "colours" of notes.

Well, I could be talking out of my ass, but this is what I have heard from the few people I know who have it.

[King Cobra]

Edge100, I don't think it's BS. But I do feel that people learn music in so many various ways that some don't use musical colors. I had basic music from around 1st through 8th grade. I also had about 2 weeks of music in 9th grade. And through all this time I never came about musical colors. So I guess it's not something discussed at where I learn stuff.

Besides, I think you kind of have to be a visual learner for that type of material. Some people do not have the visual ability as others (I have that ability), so being taught musical colors would then be sort of a waste in that sense.

[Edge100]

Besides, I think you kind of have to be a visual learner for that type of material. Some people do not have the visual ability as others (I have that ability), so being taught musical colors would then be sort of a waste in that sense.

Agreed. My point was that the couple of people that I know with perfect pitch learned it that way, and were certainly not born with it.

[sparkleytone]

there are many people who see pitches as colors. when a person has an extraordinary ear, its basically developed how they see fit, or how they are taught at a young age. I didn't have the privilege of training in my younger yrs, but I do believe that perfect pitch can definitely be developed if a natural gift is present.

also, if the everyone taught the "fixed-do" system of ear training to young people, there would be more people who develop it.

on a side note, music theory should be taught right along with math in elementary school.

[Edge100]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
there are many people who see pitches as colors. when a person has an extraordinary ear, its basically developed how they see fit, or how they are taught at a young age. I didn't have the privilege of training in my younger yrs, but I do believe that perfect pitch can definitely be developed if a natural gift is present.

also, if the everyone taught the "fixed-do" system of ear training to young people, there would be more people who develop it.

on a side note, music theory should be taught right along with math in elementary school.

Hear, hear! The importance of musical theory, while not as immediately obvious as with math (e.g.), cannot be understated. An appreciation for music, and for the intracies of the fundamentals of music, is a wonderful possession. There is certainly a lot I dont know, but I now appreciate having learned the basics way back when (and I didnt even really begin learning until I was 14 or so)

[sparkleytone]

music theory combined with appreciation cannot really be beat as a combination of left and right brain activity. as you learn theory, the two sides become equally stimulated and to the mind of a child, this basically means increased mental potential. theory basically IS math when it comes down to it. I was always a math whiz, and my theory classes are easy and stimulating because of it.

[Edge100]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
music theory combined with appreciation cannot really be beat as a combination of left and right brain activity. as you learn theory, the two sides become equally stimulated and to the mind of a child, this basically means increased mental potential. theory basically IS math when it comes down to it. I was always a math whiz, and my theory classes are easy and stimulating because of it.

But, I will say one thing. You must be able to distance yourself from that theory in some situations. Musical theory says its wrong to put a Dmaj chord and a Dmin chord in the same piece of music. Listen to "Norwegian Wood" by The Beatles (who knew no musical theory), and hear how the Dmaj in the verses are contrasted against the dmin in the bridges. They shouldnt co-exist, but they do. And quite nicely, actually.

Also, you can piss people off quite quickly if you are always going on about this-and-that in terms of theory when you really should just be listening and enjoying.;)

But you are correct, you cant beat listening to a piece of music, loving it for the sound, while at the same time knowing why it sounds so great.

[ostimu]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
well...in the US we call it "perfect pitch" and i do NOT have it actually. I believe that it IS something I can develop tho'. . .
I am thinking that in about 3 yrs, after 6 semesters of piano, ear training, theory, etc that I will have developed my ear into perfect pitch or extreme relative pitch.

I wish it were that easy. After much effort beginning in college, and continuing through graduate school (my degrees are in music composition), my ear became marginally better, but I still, by no means, have what I would consider strong relative pitch.
I don't believe that perfect pitch can be learned, at least not after childhood. Kids who study the Suzuki method seem most often to have perfect pitch, but I believe that's because of their exposure to music starting so young.
I mean, I can sing you an "A" -- or at least I could two years ago -- but that's because I had to do it every day in ear training class. From that, I can figure out other pitches, but that's just relative pitch, which is completely different than perfect pitch. And if I hear certain notes played by specific instruments, I can tell you what they are, but it's only with very specific notes. (If I hear the first note of "Rite of Spring" on a bassoon, I know it's a C, but that's such a unique sound that it's not so unusual. Play that same C on a piano, and I'd have to just guess what note it was.)

Anyway, just my $0.02 that I don't believe perfect pitch can be learned. And that color stuff ("I think Bb is violet!") is silly. I almost think that people with pitch say that stuff just to make us without it feel even more inadequate. ;)

[Zenith]

ah! thanks guys! Perfect pitch... so that's what it's called ;)

This thread is starting to get really interesting now. It's difficult for me to discuss music in english because i have to translate everything from norwegian and there's a lot of musical terms that i can't translate. But here we go...

As for musical theory vs. listening to music, there's no right and wrong when it comes to composing music. It just depends on which kind of music you're making, and what you like to express with it. The Dmin and the Dmaj in Norwegian Wood is just used to make a difference between the verse and the refrain, and is of course 'wrong' based on conservative musical theory. A LOT of harmonies and progressions in modern music is in fact 'wrong', but they represents lots of musical genres which doesn't fit into the fundamental musical theory. Although most of the basic 'rules' is of course needed to make the song sound good. Most music need to have a tonal centre, and progressions that leads to the tonal centre of a song. Repetitive melodies are also needed for the listener so he hears something that he can settle with. But of course, you can do freejazz, like me, and avoid a lot of fundamental theory, but still make the music sound good and logical. ;)

It's impossible to find an 'answer' on how to make music that sounds good, and why it sounds good. But that's what making music so vast and appealing. You'll never make the 'perfect' music... Hehe. If there is such a thing. :p

I've been studying musical theory in three years now, but I've learned about harmonies and progressions on my own since I was a little child. That resulted in my perfect pitch which I discovered when I was 14 years old.

It's really interesting to discuss musical theory, and there's a lot of connections between music and math. Math has always been easy for me, and I'm really fast at doing calculations in my head. But what I think is most related to music is the mood and our feelings. Like music comes from the heart of the composers, it also goes deeply inside the listeners head and has a tremendous effect on his mood and feelings, and it's exciting to compose music and get positive response from listeners. In my case it's always the most personal music, that comes from my 'heart', that affects the listeners feelings the most.

[G4scott]

You can study music theory all you want, but it's kinda like religion... They teach you that certain things are right, and certain things are wrong, yet to some people, the wrongs may seem right. With music, there is no right, and there is no wrong, but of course, there are some things that people just won't listen to... I do think that every child should play a musical instrument (something besides drums, in my opinion) to develop a musical sense...

As for what quality I rip at... Usually 160. I don't need too high of a quality, mostly because there is so much background noise in my house, and everywhere I go. That, and I can't really tell how much better 320kbps is... I will say, though, that I can hear a loss of quality below 128kbps...

[sparkleytone]

parallel fifths are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

i already have extremely strong relative pitch, and i was just stating that i believe i can develop it into perfect pitch.

also, i believe the color pitch idea 100%

[AlphaTech]

I've encoded most of mine in either 160 or 192. I have done some at 320 but with headphones, it is very difficult to hear any difference between 192 and 320. Especially when you are going for smaller song size for the iPod. I do have to say that many songs really suck at 128, they just don't sound anywhere near as good as either 160 or 192.

[Zenith]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
parallel fifths are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

i already have extremely strong relative pitch, and i was just stating that i believe i can develop it into perfect pitch.

also, i believe the color pitch idea 100%

I sort of believe in the color pitch idea too, and I think of "F" as a red pitch myself. I don't have any other colors bound to certain pitches, and I don't know why certain pitches get certain colors either. But that's just one of the mysteries about music... ;)

As for parallel fifths, have you ever heard of Pat Mentheny?? ;)