Music as a Necessity

Discussion in 'Community' started by King Cobra, Jul 24, 2002.

?

At what rate do you set your music quality to?

  1. 80Kbps

    2 vote(s)
    6.3%
  2. 96Kbps

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. 112Kbps

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. 128Kbps

    5 vote(s)
    15.6%
  5. 160Kbps

    7 vote(s)
    21.9%
  6. 192Kbps

    14 vote(s)
    43.8%
  7. 224Kbps

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. 256Kbps

    2 vote(s)
    6.3%
  9. 320Kbps

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  10. Perfect CD Quality

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  1. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
  3. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #3
    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
     
  4. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #4
    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.
     
  5. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5
    :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.
     
  6. King Cobra thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #6
    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:
     
  7. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #7
    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 ;)
     
  8. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #8
    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"
     
  9. billiam0878 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Location:
    Winter Park, FL
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #10
    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.
     
  11. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #11
    Waiting for mp4 support in a future iTunes update are we? :D :D
     
  12. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    I used to do 192k but now I use 160, its nice you can't tell so who cares
     
  13. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #13
    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........
     
  14. SilvorX macrumors 68000

    SilvorX

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    'Toba, Canada
    #14
    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...
     
  15. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #15
    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.
     
  16. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #16
    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! :) ;)
     
  17. Zenith macrumors 6502

    Zenith

    Joined:
    May 18, 2001
    Location:
    Norway
    #17
    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>
     
  18. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #19
    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.
     
  20. King Cobra thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #21
    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.
     
  22. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #23
    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)
     
  24. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page