Music Playback Speed

Ok, this post is for music lovers.

I have always noticed, or it always seemed to me, like my favorite songs sounded better on TV and in movies. I also noticed this effect on the radio, though not as much because let's face it, who listens to the radio (AM/FM) much anymore.

Even Youtube music videos seem to reverberate and echo in some way that a portable or desktop computer player normally doesn't.

I have a theory. I am thinking the MP3 player I have (Sansa) plays a click too fast. When I go to Windows Media Player 11, I slow down my faves to about 98.5% of full speed, and the music reclaims some lost magical quality.

Maybe I am just imagining it?

Two factors, Alfa: One is that the MP3 audio standard is "compressed"--it offers less than the full range of movie and DVD soundtracks. The other is that computer speakers aren't full range. Youtube audio and video fidelity depends on the quality of the poster's audio and video source.

If you can hear what I am referring to, that at least is a relief. Maybe it is that. I know about compression, and CoDecs (Compression Decrompression), as well as lossless compression. I was under the impression that Mp3s were lossless. Looking up MP3s now, I can see that they are not lossless. Thanks. Now this means I need to seek out lossless files and re-download my faves.

So Turnbull, I've looked across the web for who might sell lossless music files. Choices are few and far between. They've got it all locked up. Right now it looks like the only way to get a recording that is the same quality as a live performance or pristine studio recording is to buy a CD.

CDs are encoded in .WAV format. If someone knows where I can download any and all tunes I want as .WAV, your contribution would be appreciated. I doubt such a website is out there however. To have to buy a $20 dollar CD just because you like one single song is not ideal. I have no choice but to check and see if eMule can find shared .WAV files of the music I like.

Alfa, given the large number of people who are experiencing the same frustration you are dealing with, I'm sure you'll be able to find something on the Web that works.

Be careful of what you download. I was trying to find a utility to convert Youtube videos to DVD. I found a useful one to convert Youtube videos to .wmv, but none of the "free" utilities to convert .wmv to DVD worked--and all of them loaded up my computer with so much garbage that I had to uninstall them and clean the computer.

Yes that occurred to me. Right now I have a music file in my eMule download queue. It is an MP3, but it purports to be CD Quality. Of course, you don't really know what you are downloading. The Artists themselves might put out decoy copies of their work loaded with viruses to thwart file sharing (aka piracy). That said, I think I will scan the file before opening it. I don't know if an MP3 file large enough could ever equal the quality of a WAV. But its worth a shot.

They should cut us some slack. I would be happy to pay for one (1) song and put in some digital rights pass codes just to get the music I like. I would be thrilled to pay. I just don't want the whole album. Many of these people are 1 and 5 or 6 hit wonders. The rest of their stuff isn't worth listening to.

Ok, so the search for the San Graal of music continues.

I have since learned that Google Play will deliver MP3s at their highest bitrate of 320 kbps. That's as good as it gets. Lossless files are going to be gotten through torrents.

I guess I am a new Google Play customer.

If you sample your favorite tunes on Google Play, you can actually hear the difference in quality from a 256kbps MP3.

Most of what I download is from the Fifties, when there was no such thing as high fidelity records. I have a first class audio system at home that gives me full range on my CDs and remaining vinyls. The MP3's are for my iPods.

I'm not into 50's music, but I can bear witness that the sound systems before digital music sounded better in some way that's impossible to describe to someone who's never heard it. Maybe the proper term is analog music, as opposed to digital? Whatever it was, it had greater depth and substance.

edit: Analog is exactly what it was called, and was distinguished from digital because it was made up of a continuous signal, rather than digital "bits". If one listens to digital music closely, one can almost hear each individual bit, making the music sound almost like static interference. Analog music on the other hand was a continuous blast of deep sound.

Alpha, when CDs (digital music) first appeared, the technology was new enough that engineers often lost some of the subtle qualities inherent in the original (analog) masters. The sharp-eared among us could hear the difference. Techniques have improved since then.

I had an uncle who was a long-term hi-fi/stereo buff. He only bought vacuum tube equipment because he claimed that tubes gave a "warmer" sound than transistors and integrated circuits. A lot of "high end" audio buyers believe the same--and are willing to pay outlandish prices for tube equipment.

I didn't know anything of these tubes, so I briefed myself. I say if the solid state circuitry transforms the music into kilobits per second (with minute empty spaces in between the bits), then avoid it if you can. If the tubes are the only answer for a decent amplifier, and you can find them, and afford them, then go that way.

Some people feel the tubes are not actually HiFi but instead add something to the music that wasn't there at all. I might disagree with that. I'll have to see. After all, the tube is an amplifier, and it is adding to the sound by amplifying it. So is it changing the sound? Yes. But is that a change in quality or quantity? I haven't heard it (or have I), so I can't yet say.

Either way it matters not. If the alternative to the tube is a transistor that chops the music up into packets of data, that's not really a good alternative to tubes.

It's funny. Even electronic music sounds better when played over analog. I can remember listing to Depeche Mode on a cassette tape. I am assuming that was analog. Boy did that sound great. I heard the same song a million times hence, and never so good.

I wonder why they call it lossless. It might have something to do with a tremendously fast bitrate that echos the frequency of sound itself. Even so, it's not like we haven't heard lossless. We all have. We heard it before compact discs went out of style. All of the CDs were recorded in lossless. They weren't very impressive in comparison to analog.

The purpose of an amplifier is to take a weak signal from a source (cassette, CD, radio broadcast, phonograph) and make it loud enough for you to hear at a level comfortable to you. An amplifier ideally should give none of its own coloration to the sound--not add or detract from the source material, just make it stronger.

"Transistor" or "solid state" is not synonymous with "digital." The first transistor audio equipment debuted in the late Fifties, and it was all analog. Digital music (CDs) wasn't available until the early Eighties.

If digitized music is sampled and coded at a high rate, using quality studio equipment, its sound should be completely faithful to the original analog master. That's if...