6 ms·

Well, there certainly lots of audiophile features back in the 70s: Direct-Cut disks*, Quadraphonic music, dbX compressor-expanders, high-quality speakers that d

Well, there certainly lots of audiophile features back in the 70s: Direct-Cut disks*, Quadraphonic music, dbX compressor-expanders, high-quality speakers that didn't sacrifice quality and efficiency so that they could be hidden away on a bookshelf, electrostatic speakers and headphones, feather-light stylus and tone-arm combos, very high quality tape decks, and so on. Most music today is digitally compressed when it really doesn't need to be, as most storage media can hold hours and hours (weeks even!) of high-quality music. Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. * A friend and I spent an evening listening to direct-cut disks and then put on a normal pressed LP. We thought there was something the matter with the stylus, the pressed disk sounded so muddy.

PaulHoule 5y ago
I got large numbers of 1970s garage-sale speakers, hooked them up to a modern multichannel home theater receiver and add a pair of powered subwoofers. I matched the stereo pairs but figured the room correction can handle the difference between the backs and the fronts. My center is a ridiculous speaker you'd expect to see on the stage at a live music bar that I recovered from an abandoned building and replaced the crossover. It kicks ass! If you compare 128 kbps MP3 files to a CD the difference is night and day. 320 kbps MP3 is transparent, 192 kbps is not bad for most recordings. As I am writing this I am working on a python script that recompresses FLAC files from my music server to put on a USB stick for the car or for my Garmin watch. Right now the target is 192 kbps AAC for the car and the high end of the spectral band replication range (maybe 64-96 kbps) for the watch.
- klodolph 5y ago
  The 1970s is before the era when manufacturers really focused on trying to get big sound out of little speakers. In the 1970s, if you wanted big sound, you got big speakers! Modern speakers are often (not always) designed to be small and inefficient, because you can always just pump more power into them... modern amplifiers are so efficient that you can just throw energy away like that. The old speakers I've heard are not remotely flat. But they do sound big, and fun, and maybe you can just EQ out the speakers with a modern receiver's room correction.
  - bigiain 5y ago
    I have a pair of Boston Acoustics CR95s in my lounge room. I used Room EQ Wizard and a UMik-1 and a MiniDSP to measure/tune them. They came out so close to flat themselves that the only thing the MiniDSP map ended up doing was bringing in a little bit of subwoofer under about 45Hz to prop the very bottom end up. The sound beautiful, at least to my old and abused ears, for both music and movies. (I use them as stern + a su=ingle sub for music, and as part of a 5.1 system with a centre speaker and rears for movies). They aren't quite 70's old. But they were a long way from new when I got em off eBay a decade or more back. I also still have the first speakers and amps I ever bought, back in 1988. Boston Acoustics A60MkIIs and a NAD 1100/2200 opre/power amp pair. This speakers have has 3 or 4 new drivers (all due to party abuse) and the caps in the crossovers replaced every decade or so, and the amps have had all the electrolytics replaced a couple for times. They still provide great sound in my dining room. (And I've become a bit af a NAD/Boston Acoustics brand-tragic. I end up drunk eBaying both brands every now and then, I have a pair of A40 speakers on my desk here, The lounge room home theatre amp is a NAD 70W per channel amp. And I've got most of a setup of a pair of A40s, a NAD 3020, and an Apple Airport Express together as a birthday present for a friend in a few weeks...)
  - simonblack 5y ago
    KEF Concertos. I literally cried when I blew them up for the last time, and I could no longer get replacement parts for them. I met a guy who had a pair about 10 years later. I offered him double what he had paid for them new. He wouldn't let them go, either.
- musick 5y ago
  How did you set up the room correction?
  - bigiain 5y ago
    I can't speak for them, but I use a calibrated microphone and programmable DSPs from here: https://www.minidsp.com https://www.minidsp.com Combined with this software: https://www.roomeqwizard.com https://www.roomeqwizard.com
munificent 5y ago
> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. Today, most users are listening to AAC or Ogg Vorbis, not MP3. At typical compression rates, the distinction between lossy compression and lossless is completely anaudible. There have been many many blind studies of this, including some you can take yourself online right now. Fire up your nice headphone amp, plug in your electrostatic headphones and take a blind test yourself. You'll find that there's no audible benefit to lossless compression. It's just a waste of network bandwidth and disk space.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >You'll find that there's no audible benefit to lossless compression.* * When the compression is done well. Shit compression makes itself known fast. If that shit compression possibly sounds okayish on 2000s style computer speakers, connecting the output to real speakers makes it even more obvious. Not all compression is equal even if they do use the same codec.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    You're conflating audio (dynamic range) compression with data compression. Dynamic range compression is an artifact of the mastering process. It very much can be done well or done poorly. Lossless data compression like FLAC isn't something that can be done "wrong". It's just encoding redundancies in the audio samples to save space. It's lossless so it will spit out the exact audio as was originally encoded.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I was writing a reply along the same lines, when I realized that we're both misreading the comment. The original point: lossless compression is not worth it, lossy is OK. The counter-claim: only when the lossy compression is done well. This is not about audio compression.
      - dylan604 5y ago
dylan604 5y ago
>Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? When MP3s were "hot", storage wasn't available in the sizes now, nor was bandwidth available to make uncompressed practical. FLAC style compression wasn't really a thing then either. MP3 was able to hit critical mass, and people have been unwilling to let it go. We see that in so many other areas as well like FB, shopping at Amazon, etc. People are aware there are less bad things, but it's just too engrained.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Flac is older than most folks realize however it didn’t save enough space circa 2k.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    According to wikipedia, the initial release was 20 July 2001. By 2001, we had been using mpeg type audio for some time, whatever audio Cinepak pushed, RealAudio, etc. Hell even AAC came out in late 90s, but didn't take off for much much longer. FLAC was a baby while other formats were wearing long beards and suspenders. Only audiophiles used it, and it really didn't take of until AFLAC and iTunes/iPods.
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      Apple's never supported it directly.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Sorry, ALAC, not AFLAC <quack>
- FpUser 5y ago
  Not just that. Those times thanks to Napster one could easily find some amazing hidden gems that were simply not available on market. Those were mostly mp3 only. Take it or leave. I appreciate good audio quality but if music itself is good I would listen to it even at low quality MP3. The quality of some really old stuff is low anyways.
bigbillheck 5y ago
> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. My ears are almost fifty years old and were never that great to begin with.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. This one really boggles the mind indeed and I have a theory. But first basically: to me it's the same as saying, if you could have the real DaVinci's Gioconda painting at your home, "Look, I've got this 300 dpi color print of the Gioconda and I don't care, because from 10 meters away you cannot tell the difference". This, in itself, when you can save tens of thousands of songs in FLAC (CD quality) on a 1 TB is just seriously WTF. But I think the reason people are still using mp3s when they could be using FLAC files is because there's an entire industry, operating at a loss, streaming non-CD quality. And they have to brainwash everybody into thinking lossy audio still makes sense in 2021. Storage, however, is only going to get cheaper and cheaper. The mental gymnastics going to be needed in the upcoming years to keep arguing for mp3s over FLAC is going to be plain mindboggling. I don't care if I can't consciously hear the difference. I still want the correct file/sound. I can put 60 000 songs at CD quality on a 1 TB stick / SSD. Soon we'll be able to put 600 000 songs at CD quality on memory sticks / SSDs. And you can bet you'll still have people nostalgic of Winamp and Napster explaining how mp3 makes perfect sense. FLAC are also a bitperfect archival format btw, mp3 ain't. I rip all my CDs (and I still collect CDs) to FLAC file. The only time I convert to mp3 is because my car's media system reads mp3 but not FLAC: and when I need to convert I'm happy that I don't have a lossy format to start with.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  My Pioneer car stereo plays flacs, if that helps any.
- bigiain 5y ago
  I don't actively seek out mp3 format files, but I have a bunch dating back to when I was ripping cds, vinyl, and cassettes to 100MB Zip disks in the late 90s - where I'll probably never have access to the original sourced to re rip them. Forgotten local bands, mix tapes, desk tapes fro live gigs, stuff like that. I'd replace my Jump Back Jack, or Hungarian Rap Sadists 128k mp3 files in a heartbeat - if I could get my hands on the vinyl to re rip them. These days I buy a lot of cds and vinyl from bands at merch desks or off bandcamp, but I can't remember the last time I ripped any of those, most of what I listen to is Apple Music streaming (a lot of which is lossless these days) or Spotify Premium. I have a few TB worth of media server space with a huge music collection on it, but I didn't even notice it was offline for a week or more recently, because it's way easier for me to stream off my phone, laptop, or AppleTV - and if I'm in the mood to listen to stuff that's not on streaming, I'm almost certainly in the mood to pull the vinyl out and give it a spin...
specialist 5y ago
> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? I can't hear the difference. While I love music, I've never had good hearing. Further worsened by live music and clubbing (without protection). Aging too, of course. Just from a practical matter, I prefer lossless encoding. Some of the MP3 files I encoded have glitches. It simplifies deduping my library (just pick the best quality instance).

PaulHoule 5y ago

I got large numbers of 1970s garage-sale speakers, hooked them up to a modern multichannel home theater receiver and add a pair of powered subwoofers. I matched the stereo pairs but figured the room correction can handle the difference between the backs and the fronts. My center is a ridiculous speaker you'd expect to see on the stage at a live music bar that I recovered from an abandoned building and replaced the crossover. It kicks ass! If you compare 128 kbps MP3 files to a CD the difference is night and day. 320 kbps MP3 is transparent, 192 kbps is not bad for most recordings. As I am writing this I am working on a python script that recompresses FLAC files from my music server to put on a USB stick for the car or for my Garmin watch. Right now the target is 192 kbps AAC for the car and the high end of the spectral band replication range (maybe 64-96 kbps) for the watch.

klodolph 5y ago
The 1970s is before the era when manufacturers really focused on trying to get big sound out of little speakers. In the 1970s, if you wanted big sound, you got big speakers! Modern speakers are often (not always) designed to be small and inefficient, because you can always just pump more power into them... modern amplifiers are so efficient that you can just throw energy away like that. The old speakers I've heard are not remotely flat. But they do sound big, and fun, and maybe you can just EQ out the speakers with a modern receiver's room correction.
- bigiain 5y ago
  I have a pair of Boston Acoustics CR95s in my lounge room. I used Room EQ Wizard and a UMik-1 and a MiniDSP to measure/tune them. They came out so close to flat themselves that the only thing the MiniDSP map ended up doing was bringing in a little bit of subwoofer under about 45Hz to prop the very bottom end up. The sound beautiful, at least to my old and abused ears, for both music and movies. (I use them as stern + a su=ingle sub for music, and as part of a 5.1 system with a centre speaker and rears for movies). They aren't quite 70's old. But they were a long way from new when I got em off eBay a decade or more back. I also still have the first speakers and amps I ever bought, back in 1988. Boston Acoustics A60MkIIs and a NAD 1100/2200 opre/power amp pair. This speakers have has 3 or 4 new drivers (all due to party abuse) and the caps in the crossovers replaced every decade or so, and the amps have had all the electrolytics replaced a couple for times. They still provide great sound in my dining room. (And I've become a bit af a NAD/Boston Acoustics brand-tragic. I end up drunk eBaying both brands every now and then, I have a pair of A40 speakers on my desk here, The lounge room home theatre amp is a NAD 70W per channel amp. And I've got most of a setup of a pair of A40s, a NAD 3020, and an Apple Airport Express together as a birthday present for a friend in a few weeks...)
- simonblack 5y ago
  KEF Concertos. I literally cried when I blew them up for the last time, and I could no longer get replacement parts for them. I met a guy who had a pair about 10 years later. I offered him double what he had paid for them new. He wouldn't let them go, either.
musick 5y ago
How did you set up the room correction?
- bigiain 5y ago
  I can't speak for them, but I use a calibrated microphone and programmable DSPs from here: https://www.minidsp.com https://www.minidsp.com Combined with this software: https://www.roomeqwizard.com https://www.roomeqwizard.com

munificent 5y ago

> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. Today, most users are listening to AAC or Ogg Vorbis, not MP3. At typical compression rates, the distinction between lossy compression and lossless is completely anaudible. There have been many many blind studies of this, including some you can take yourself online right now. Fire up your nice headphone amp, plug in your electrostatic headphones and take a blind test yourself. You'll find that there's no audible benefit to lossless compression. It's just a waste of network bandwidth and disk space.

dylan604 5y ago
>You'll find that there's no audible benefit to lossless compression.* * When the compression is done well. Shit compression makes itself known fast. If that shit compression possibly sounds okayish on 2000s style computer speakers, connecting the output to real speakers makes it even more obvious. Not all compression is equal even if they do use the same codec.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  You're conflating audio (dynamic range) compression with data compression. Dynamic range compression is an artifact of the mastering process. It very much can be done well or done poorly. Lossless data compression like FLAC isn't something that can be done "wrong". It's just encoding redundancies in the audio samples to save space. It's lossless so it will spit out the exact audio as was originally encoded.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I was writing a reply along the same lines, when I realized that we're both misreading the comment. The original point: lossless compression is not worth it, lossy is OK. The counter-claim: only when the lossy compression is done well. This is not about audio compression.
    - dylan604 5y ago

dylan604 5y ago

>Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? When MP3s were "hot", storage wasn't available in the sizes now, nor was bandwidth available to make uncompressed practical. FLAC style compression wasn't really a thing then either. MP3 was able to hit critical mass, and people have been unwilling to let it go. We see that in so many other areas as well like FB, shopping at Amazon, etc. People are aware there are less bad things, but it's just too engrained.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Flac is older than most folks realize however it didn’t save enough space circa 2k.
- dylan604 5y ago
  According to wikipedia, the initial release was 20 July 2001. By 2001, we had been using mpeg type audio for some time, whatever audio Cinepak pushed, RealAudio, etc. Hell even AAC came out in late 90s, but didn't take off for much much longer. FLAC was a baby while other formats were wearing long beards and suspenders. Only audiophiles used it, and it really didn't take of until AFLAC and iTunes/iPods.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    Apple's never supported it directly.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Sorry, ALAC, not AFLAC <quack>
FpUser 5y ago
Not just that. Those times thanks to Napster one could easily find some amazing hidden gems that were simply not available on market. Those were mostly mp3 only. Take it or leave. I appreciate good audio quality but if music itself is good I would listen to it even at low quality MP3. The quality of some really old stuff is low anyways.

bigbillheck 5y ago

> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. My ears are almost fifty years old and were never that great to begin with.

TacticalCoder 5y ago

> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? SMH. This one really boggles the mind indeed and I have a theory. But first basically: to me it's the same as saying, if you could have the real DaVinci's Gioconda painting at your home, "Look, I've got this 300 dpi color print of the Gioconda and I don't care, because from 10 meters away you cannot tell the difference". This, in itself, when you can save tens of thousands of songs in FLAC (CD quality) on a 1 TB is just seriously WTF. But I think the reason people are still using mp3s when they could be using FLAC files is because there's an entire industry, operating at a loss, streaming non-CD quality. And they have to brainwash everybody into thinking lossy audio still makes sense in 2021. Storage, however, is only going to get cheaper and cheaper. The mental gymnastics going to be needed in the upcoming years to keep arguing for mp3s over FLAC is going to be plain mindboggling. I don't care if I can't consciously hear the difference. I still want the correct file/sound. I can put 60 000 songs at CD quality on a 1 TB stick / SSD. Soon we'll be able to put 600 000 songs at CD quality on memory sticks / SSDs. And you can bet you'll still have people nostalgic of Winamp and Napster explaining how mp3 makes perfect sense. FLAC are also a bitperfect archival format btw, mp3 ain't. I rip all my CDs (and I still collect CDs) to FLAC file. The only time I convert to mp3 is because my car's media system reads mp3 but not FLAC: and when I need to convert I'm happy that I don't have a lossy format to start with.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
My Pioneer car stereo plays flacs, if that helps any.
bigiain 5y ago
I don't actively seek out mp3 format files, but I have a bunch dating back to when I was ripping cds, vinyl, and cassettes to 100MB Zip disks in the late 90s - where I'll probably never have access to the original sourced to re rip them. Forgotten local bands, mix tapes, desk tapes fro live gigs, stuff like that. I'd replace my Jump Back Jack, or Hungarian Rap Sadists 128k mp3 files in a heartbeat - if I could get my hands on the vinyl to re rip them. These days I buy a lot of cds and vinyl from bands at merch desks or off bandcamp, but I can't remember the last time I ripped any of those, most of what I listen to is Apple Music streaming (a lot of which is lossless these days) or Spotify Premium. I have a few TB worth of media server space with a huge music collection on it, but I didn't even notice it was offline for a week or more recently, because it's way easier for me to stream off my phone, laptop, or AppleTV - and if I'm in the mood to listen to stuff that's not on streaming, I'm almost certainly in the mood to pull the vinyl out and give it a spin...

specialist 5y ago

> Why would people bother with crappy MP3s when they could have no-loss storage instead? I can't hear the difference. While I love music, I've never had good hearing. Further worsened by live music and clubbing (without protection). Aging too, of course. Just from a practical matter, I prefer lossless encoding. Some of the MP3 files I encoded have glitches. It simplifies deduping my library (just pick the best quality instance).