Discussion
Thought this was worth a new thread.
Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
GetCarter said:
Thought this was worth a new thread.
Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Well in my case, my eyes are working much better than my ears!Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Also, I can manipulate a RAW image a lot better than a jpg.
Audio used to be a passion of mine until my tinnitus started, now I use mp3 as it's the easiest format to swap and play on various devices.
I think 95% of camera users are perfectly happy with JPG. Indeed you can ask compact-wielding wedding guests if they shoot JPG and they have no idea what you're talking about.
And so JPG is the majority preference, just as MP3 is. For audiophiles there's always that tape stuff at 42ips or whatever!
And so JPG is the majority preference, just as MP3 is. For audiophiles there's always that tape stuff at 42ips or whatever!
Simpo Two said:
I think 95% of camera users are perfectly happy with JPG. Indeed you can ask compact-wielding wedding guests if they shoot JPG and they have no idea what you're talking about.
And so JPG is the majority preference, just as MP3 is. For audiophiles there's always that tape stuff at 42ips or whatever!
Fair point... but those in here seem to be (rightly) obsessed by quality, yet ignore it when it comes to audio. It's just a shame as what we see is getting better (resolution wise), but what we hear is getting worse.And so JPG is the majority preference, just as MP3 is. For audiophiles there's always that tape stuff at 42ips or whatever!
ETA I'm guilty as well. as I have MP3s on my website (for easy download).... but nobody seems to want the full bandwidth version any more. MP3 seems to be the default quality.
And that means that up to 90% of the original has been lost forever.
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 30th August 18:39
DibblyDobbler said:
I normally listen to music on my iPhone (through sh*tty headphones) or in the car - not sure I'd notice the difference if it was in a different file format 
Tis true, you won't.The days of proper hi fi are probably almost over, and I'm the dinosaur in the corner of the room.
It's interesting though, as interest in resolution for photos goes up, interest in resolution for audio goes down.
Fair point.
Personally, I moved into small cramped house nine years ago and my hifi had to go into storage (where it remains to this day
)
Opportunities to sit and listen to music are limited in my life, so it's a compromise that I can have 8000 odd MP3 tracks in my car, through earphones, headphones or the convenient Bose docking station I recently got. Can't carry that many CDs or vinyl about .....
Twice the physical size will still accommodate a FireWire drive for 20,000 RAW files!
Personally, I moved into small cramped house nine years ago and my hifi had to go into storage (where it remains to this day
) Opportunities to sit and listen to music are limited in my life, so it's a compromise that I can have 8000 odd MP3 tracks in my car, through earphones, headphones or the convenient Bose docking station I recently got. Can't carry that many CDs or vinyl about .....
Twice the physical size will still accommodate a FireWire drive for 20,000 RAW files!
Just had a thought (not often I get them) and may question your analogy.
When you shoot RAW, isn't it for the purpose of editing?
To actually print the photo or display it on a PC, isn't it normally in a jpeg format at some level of compression.
If that's the case, then RAW is more like a Recording Studio quality for sound.
It's then mixed and outputted into a compressed format for CD (.wav) or MP3
When you shoot RAW, isn't it for the purpose of editing?
To actually print the photo or display it on a PC, isn't it normally in a jpeg format at some level of compression.
If that's the case, then RAW is more like a Recording Studio quality for sound.
It's then mixed and outputted into a compressed format for CD (.wav) or MP3
Wonder how many people know what they are seeing and hearing? The two formats are used to cut space and fool the brain. TV is a big example of this. I suppose it is what you are happy with. I use raw as I a cock up the image taking, I can fix it, or at least make it presentable. mp3 for the ipod and a record player for the good stuff.
I'm gradually ripping all my CDs as lossless files, and that's pretty much all I listen to. I did do a listening test and I could not tell the difference between 320kbps AAC files or lossless ones, but decided that in the same way I shoot RAW I'd rather rip them all once, non-lossy and not have to do it again later.
My first digital camera (an EOS1-based Kodak DCS520) could only shoot RAW files, and when the EOS-1D came along it was amazing to be able to shoot straight to jpeg, as it made working so much faster (I was doing daily news at the time so it really mattered if I wanted to avoid angry editors shouting at me as deadlines neared), but now I look back at the few years I shot jpegs with regret, as the files are so much more restricted.
My first digital camera (an EOS1-based Kodak DCS520) could only shoot RAW files, and when the EOS-1D came along it was amazing to be able to shoot straight to jpeg, as it made working so much faster (I was doing daily news at the time so it really mattered if I wanted to avoid angry editors shouting at me as deadlines neared), but now I look back at the few years I shot jpegs with regret, as the files are so much more restricted.
GetCarter said:
Thought this was worth a new thread.
Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
ABX logs at v0 please. Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
tog said:
I'm gradually ripping all my CDs as lossless files, and that's pretty much all I listen to. I did do a listening test and I could not tell the difference between 320kbps AAC files or lossless ones, but decided that in the same way I shoot RAW I'd rather rip them all once, non-lossy and not have to do it again later.
Same hereI think you'll find that a high number of young people's hearing has been damaged through the use of headphones being too loud so they won't be able to pick out the nuances that the different formats allow.
That and they've never been exposed to listening to quality music; I know a nephew of mine was amazed at the differences when I played him some vinyl compared to his MP3 recording of the same track.
I would have said it's down to the convenience factor.
That and they've never been exposed to listening to quality music; I know a nephew of mine was amazed at the differences when I played him some vinyl compared to his MP3 recording of the same track.
I would have said it's down to the convenience factor.
GetCarter said:
Thought this was worth a new thread.
Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
I guess I don't manipulate the mp3 music in any way so perhaps don't bump into its 'rough edges' in the same way I do with jpgs...Why is it that so many of you are so keen to hail the benefits of RAW photos and 'dis' JPG, and then listen to squashed to hell music MP3s?
MP3s are (obviously) the work of the devil - the worst form of of squashed media - yet most here seem to subscribe to the format.
How do you square that circle?
Are your hi-fi / personal stereos / headphones that bad? Or do you just not care about audio quality?
Just a thought.
Interested to hear.
I have an ok hifi with Senn HD555 headphones (though I'm sure not up to proper studio cans
) - but I can't tell the difference between high bit-rate MP3s and uncompressed audio - though I'd admit not doing back-to-back tests.I guess I'm a bit of 'data snob' with regard to RAW files and their processing, so I save lossless compression until the last moment when I make a web-ready jpg. So in that vein, what would you advise for storing music digitally?
Interesting comparison
It's not just crap audio that people seem to happily accept, it's images too; I'm sure there have been threads started here asking "Which new camera that I can easily use to take pictures in any (demanding) situation should I buy for about £100?".
On the whole most people don't know/care about quality, they only care that they are doing/buying the same thing as others and hence will be accepted by the rest of their 'tribe'.
Most (middle class) people have very little confidence in their own judgement :where's the flame-suit smilie?:
I must make the emperor some new clothes.
On the whole most people don't know/care about quality, they only care that they are doing/buying the same thing as others and hence will be accepted by the rest of their 'tribe'.
Most (middle class) people have very little confidence in their own judgement :where's the flame-suit smilie?:
I must make the emperor some new clothes
.GetCarter said:
Fair point... but those in here seem to be (rightly) obsessed by quality, yet ignore it when it comes to audio.
That's probably because it's full of photographers in here, who care about the quality of their images. If you go to an audio forum, I am sure most of the people in there will be listening to the music on their digital devices in whatever format gives high quality, but I bet most of them will be shooting jpegs with their cameras!I guess I have a little history that I'm a bit anal about RAW. I used to be anal about music playback too.
I think a distinction needs to be made about the differences. There's nothing wrong with the idea of listening to a high quality mp3 or viewing a jpg saved at high quality, they are fine as delivery formats and 99% of people won't be able to tell the difference between RAW or uncompressed.
But only!... if recorded in an uncompressed RAW format to start with, then edited and then output. The blasphemy is to to record in jpg or mp3 at the beginning, letting the camera, or recorder, chuck away all the detail. You wouldn't record in mp3 would you?
I listen to mp3s purely for convenience, often through Sony 7506s and the sound is usually awful! But I don't agonise about radio quality either, it's just a bit of light listening.
Haven't spent any money on 'real' hifi for years, but even my micromega CD player sounds a little jpegy compared to the sweet sounding noise that comes from a diamond wobbling about in a plastic groove on an LP12. Fortunately I have a few clean pressings and listening in a dark room to Vega's first intake of breath before singing Tom's Diner, I could swear she's in the room! Jubbly
ETA: On Solitude Standing, Luka follows. Gets quite busy with acoustic guitar and lots of percussion. On Vinyl (and I'm sure on current CD Blu-ray), everything is clear, all instruments separated. Just listened to a 320kbs mp3, total mush, just like looking at a jpg from in camera
I think a distinction needs to be made about the differences. There's nothing wrong with the idea of listening to a high quality mp3 or viewing a jpg saved at high quality, they are fine as delivery formats and 99% of people won't be able to tell the difference between RAW or uncompressed.
But only!... if recorded in an uncompressed RAW format to start with, then edited and then output. The blasphemy is to to record in jpg or mp3 at the beginning, letting the camera, or recorder, chuck away all the detail. You wouldn't record in mp3 would you?
I listen to mp3s purely for convenience, often through Sony 7506s and the sound is usually awful! But I don't agonise about radio quality either, it's just a bit of light listening.
Haven't spent any money on 'real' hifi for years, but even my micromega CD player sounds a little jpegy compared to the sweet sounding noise that comes from a diamond wobbling about in a plastic groove on an LP12. Fortunately I have a few clean pressings and listening in a dark room to Vega's first intake of breath before singing Tom's Diner, I could swear she's in the room! Jubbly
ETA: On Solitude Standing, Luka follows. Gets quite busy with acoustic guitar and lots of percussion. On Vinyl (and I'm sure on current CD Blu-ray), everything is clear, all instruments separated. Just listened to a 320kbs mp3, total mush, just like looking at a jpg from in camera
Edited by Bacardi on Friday 31st August 12:56
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff