4 ms·

Let me put it this way: I prefer Music-A so much more than Music-B, that I'd choose Music-A playing on an AM-radio over Music-B playing on an FM radio. Fidelit

Let me put it this way: I prefer Music-A so much more than Music-B, that I'd choose Music-A playing on an AM-radio over Music-B playing on an FM radio. Fidelity is indeed swell, but how important is it really? A lot of the music I like best, I first heard on a crappy recording or a shitty sound-system. There were A LOT of hit songs recorded before FM came along, and yet that 10k AM bandwidth (e.g. when the Beatles were big) didn't keep people from buying copies by the millions. Gasp! How can that be? How much of the time I'm actually listening to music I like do I actually care about the fidelity? If band A's crappy cover is available in FLAC, will I choose it because band B's brilliant cover is only 128K mp3? NO. This eternal argument has little to do with music. I still like 'Louie Louie' by the Kingsmen (a recording that cost $36), never mind how shitty the studio was. I'll still choose it over a FLAC from the studio master of "Never Gonna Give You Up". I can hear around the 'flawed' repro. Two kinds of 'purism' at work here. Pure genius beats pure fidelity.

meowface 5y ago
I'll take what I can get, basically. If I don't have access to good gear or good recording/compression quality, I'll use what's available. But if there's a song I like and I have the option of using good gear and lossless audio, I personally find it can optimize my enjoyment of the song.
tkgally 5y ago
That’s my position, too. I listen to a lot of jazz recorded in the 1930s and 1940s, sometimes with audible surface noise from digitized 78s [1], and the musicianship comes through just fine. I can read a novel or poem on a smartphone, in a paperback, on a fourth-generation photocopy, or in fine letterpress printing on 100% cotton paper. The reading experience might be a bit more comfortable in the last case, but the author’s words are the same in all. I like the Kingsmen’s “Louie Louie,” too. I played it for my grandson yesterday. [1] https://archive.org/details/georgeblood https://archive.org/details/georgeblood
sideshowb 5y ago
You're right, but I think you're missing that it's sometimes genre dependent. The Beatles material was crafted to make it sound good over AM radio, and it does. I'm also a fan of loads of electronic music but as far as I'm concerned there's no point listening to the latter on a system that can't reproduce the bass. (Unless it's earlier material like the Prodigy which again I think was crafted to sound good on crappy blown car speakers - exception that proves the rule!)
brokenmachine 5y ago
Personally I want to listen to the music I like in the best quality available. Call me a snob, but usually I'd rather listen to a totally different Band C's song in at least 320k mp3 (preferably FLAC) than either Band A or B's in less quality. But I enjoy music on a technical level as well. I find it very difficult to enjoy bad mastering or audio quality. There is enough well-mastered and recorded music out there nowadays that I don't feel I need to be subjected to badly-recorded music. There are some recordings where I really wish they were done better, but very few that are really badly recorded that I can enjoy, no matter how good the music itself might be.

meowface 5y ago

I'll take what I can get, basically. If I don't have access to good gear or good recording/compression quality, I'll use what's available. But if there's a song I like and I have the option of using good gear and lossless audio, I personally find it can optimize my enjoyment of the song.

tkgally 5y ago

That’s my position, too. I listen to a lot of jazz recorded in the 1930s and 1940s, sometimes with audible surface noise from digitized 78s [1], and the musicianship comes through just fine. I can read a novel or poem on a smartphone, in a paperback, on a fourth-generation photocopy, or in fine letterpress printing on 100% cotton paper. The reading experience might be a bit more comfortable in the last case, but the author’s words are the same in all. I like the Kingsmen’s “Louie Louie,” too. I played it for my grandson yesterday. [1] https://archive.org/details/georgeblood https://archive.org/details/georgeblood

sideshowb 5y ago

You're right, but I think you're missing that it's sometimes genre dependent. The Beatles material was crafted to make it sound good over AM radio, and it does. I'm also a fan of loads of electronic music but as far as I'm concerned there's no point listening to the latter on a system that can't reproduce the bass. (Unless it's earlier material like the Prodigy which again I think was crafted to sound good on crappy blown car speakers - exception that proves the rule!)

brokenmachine 5y ago

Personally I want to listen to the music I like in the best quality available. Call me a snob, but usually I'd rather listen to a totally different Band C's song in at least 320k mp3 (preferably FLAC) than either Band A or B's in less quality. But I enjoy music on a technical level as well. I find it very difficult to enjoy bad mastering or audio quality. There is enough well-mastered and recorded music out there nowadays that I don't feel I need to be subjected to badly-recorded music. There are some recordings where I really wish they were done better, but very few that are really badly recorded that I can enjoy, no matter how good the music itself might be.