Royal Yaksman
 
And sure they love it now but it doesn't seem to take long to get buried by the new 1000 songs (over exaggeration?) 

No that is not an over exaggeration. I was working a computer store and one of my jobs was taking viruses off computers. People would come in with up to and a few times over 5,000 songs on their computer. I quit that job as I didn’t like seeing the stealing of fellow musicians’ songs. I am a firm believer of if you like a song then buy it.

sharke
The worst offenders are people who don't seem to mind that their speakers are buzzing. There's a guy around the corner from me who sells books from a table on the street and he has this little ghettoblaster playing hip hop so loud that the speakers rattle and it's a distorted mess. It makes my eyes water just to walk past, yet he's quite happy to listen to it all day. Some people really do have cloth ears. The same goes for people who listen to beat based music in cars so loud that the speakers distort. They don't care about fidelity in the slightest.

I agree. I really is a crying shame.
I remember when I was young, even before driving, I always liked my music loud.
My problem was I wanted it loud AND crystal clear. I have always been, for some reason, a strange bird because I always left my EQ settings flat. Even as a young'un I felt that if an album had a certain sound it was because the band/artist/producer wanted it that way.
Who the hell am I to try and change Led Zeppelin's signature sound?
 
Over the years the whole cranking the stereo up thing has of course faded.
I still am a fan of clear music tho. Unless the artist has recorded something with an intentional fuzzy or crackling sound. 
 
Mike  

I actually agree with a lot of your points. But I think someone needed to play devils advocate in this thread and I just happen to pick your post. Really didn't mean to pick on you. 

I hate the over compressed mastering of many of the modern releases. I will not listen to it. There is no excuse for things being released this way. Need something louder, that's what the volume control is for. We need better amplifiers in our portable players, not overly compressed masters being released to make them sound louder.

And yes, MP3s are technically a compressed lossy format of lower quality. And that is what you get when you buy from iTunes, though I think they are 256 kbs now without DRM. It is a shame that many of the kids now will have bought an entire music library of lesser quality perhaps not even realizing that. I was totally against buying music this way. I have given in a little and have bought a number of albums from iTunes. It's always out of convenience. But at the same time I haven't been disappointed with these purchases. They sound good. But I know I could have gotten a better version for probably the same price if I had been patient and bought them on CD. Lately I've been buying records and making MP3s from them. Go figure.

I guess my point was that MP3s are not the garbage that some people like to make them out to be. And in some regards are no better or worse than some of the older formats. There's pluses and minuses.

Good thing I was replying on my iPhone. I had to look up the definition of pedant. :)

Hi WDI.
 
No worries, that's cool as I know you weren't picking on me as such as I appreciate this is a forum & debate is exactly what this is about & everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
Yeah, I was doing the same thing back in that day - taping music so I agree with everything you posted.
 
Maybe it's because I'm "old skool" or something as I still prefer to use hardware synths than software!  It's not because I think they sound better as there's no denying Sylenth, Z3TA, Massive, etc but as I've been collecting synths for a very long time, I've built an arsenal of gear & I enjoy using it so why buy lots of plugins when I have that sonic arsenal which doesn't eat up CPU cycles?  In some ways, some of my analogue gear has a distinct sound to it which records very nicely through an analogue mixer straight into Sonar without me having to use loads of plugins to warm it up!  I also like messing with real controls as I find it quicker than using fiddly mouse controls to build your-own sounds.  I also use modern plugs-ins to emulate the GUIs in Sonar so I get the best of both worlds in terms of automation & I can save & recall sounds in an instant too!
 
So regarding MP3s, as I'm fussy & seem to perceive the difference, I won't buy an album on download & as a result, I'll still order the CD online & then rip it for portable use as I get to choose the quality I rip to but can still listen to an original uncompressed version.  I do agree & would probably say that a 192Kbps MP3 is better quality than tape especially cassettes as they use to do a dynamic compression job on tracks due to the limitations of tape even when compared with the dynamic range of records.
 
However, as you can hardly buy physical singles any more, those I'm forced to buy on download but here I choose a site like Audio Jelly where I can buy a WAV version or high quality 320Kbps MP3 version which I can compress for portable use but at least I get an original good quality & Audio Jelly charge the same for a WAV as they do for an MP3, unlike other sites which charge more for higher quality formats.  In the UK, it's a flat charge of 99 pence - which is as cheap as you'll legally get it anywhere or almost anyway.
 
So, I do think that iTunes is a rip-off as are other sites which charge more & don't give you a choice!  But it's now the biggest retailer for music because Apple made it so easy for consumers so we have to thank them for keeping the music industry alive in a modern busy world.
 
There's been a lot of talk about hearing the music how the artist intended it, Blu-ray recordings with uncompressed audio, etc but here we have a generation of MP3 listeners who are doing the exact opposite.  Audio CDs offer all of this as it was in their design from the outset so for me, on good grade audio, why listen to something inferior?  How is this progress?
 
I think the question that should be asked is to all those people who say how wonderful the audio is on an uncompressed Blu-ray & ask whether they listen to their music in MP3s exclusively as this is a total contradiction!  I know people who fall square-on in this category.  So why rave about the quality of raw audio in Blu-ray & then listen to MP3s?  I bet they'd say it's superior to CDs in pure listening terms!  I'm afraid that I find this talk a load of bull as can they really tell the difference between 16-bit CDs & 24-bit Blu-rays?  If they think MP3s are good quality then I think they're talking pure bull as I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference between a stereo track on a CD & Blu-ray!  Yeah, we all know that it's encoded with extra bits & 24-bits allows a higher dynamic range but can the human ear really tell anything above about a 100db range?  I think not especially after the mastering stage when dynamic compression has been added.
 
Is this a good time to mention Spotify & how little they charge users & how little artists get from the service per play?  Probably a discussion for a different thread!

Wow this thread has gotten pretty deep....  Say, can anyone recommend a good set of ear buds for mastering?

I guess I'm still trying to figure this thread out. If it's a good mix it will sound good even it it's converted to an MP3 or what iPhones or iPods to to them.
 
Why not have a thread about why the sun rises every morning?

Guitarpima
I guess I'm still trying to figure this thread out. If it's a good mix it will sound good even it it's converted to an MP3 or what iPhones or iPods to to them.
 
Why not have a thread about why the sun rises every morning?

I think we should have a thread about Audio Trolls instead...