Posted on 08/18/2009 4:31:11 PM PDT by Star Traveler
Kinda works on both side of the fence... eh? :-)
You said — Or it could be a load of crap
—
Well, how music sounds and the “quality” is somewhat subjective, but there are audiophiles who swear that they can “hear differences” in different quality equipment. I probably can’t like some of those people can, but that doesn’t mean the differences in quality don’t exist.
In fact, in reading about the history of QuickTime and its operation on Windows systems, I have read that Apple was able to show Microsoft how to get better quality results (from their audio and video components running on Windows) than the Microsoft and Intel people even thought was possible in the first place. I understand it surprised them.
So, I wouldn’t doubt that some people can actually “hear” the better quality. I wouldn’t claim to be one of those who can hear it though — but as I said — it doesn’t mean that others are not hearing it.
The browser makes no differents as that is simply the user interface for downloading. The quality of digital music depends largely on its sampling rate. How many times each second the sound wave value is presented.
What matters is the original file compression, or sampling rate. The more frequent the samples of the sound wave the closer it is to the real analog sound.
There are thousands of codecs. The better ones are more expensive and require more resources to run. most of them sound the same to the average ear.
You said — Windows XP works just fine for me.
—
I understand, and I’m sure it’s that way for a lot of people..., too...
Heck! I know some people who could just as easily live in a barn as anywhere... But, others like a nice home and nice furniture and stuff... so it’s all in one’s taste, I guess.
I don’t know how good or bad the zune is, but breaking it seems stupid. Clear it out, and give it to some little kid who can’t afford an Mp3 player. That’s what I would do. Some kid would probably love the thing.
true audiophiles prefer analog because it is far superior to any digital music.
there is a difference. The average person has an untrained ear and cannot tell the difference.
ipods are fine and so are zunes
You said — The browser makes no differents as that is simply the user interface for downloading.
—
I think what many may be “missing” here — is that Apple also installed QuickTime components along with doing the Safari Browser installation. At least, at one time they did that.
Now, what can happen (and maybe this is what is being alluded to here) — is — that after a Safari Browser installation was done, things sounded different and better (can’t say for sure, but this sort of sounds like what is being said...). And that could be possible, because the QuickTime components would have been installed at the same time (at least there were at one time in the past, when Safari was being installed).
And what you said about there being a lot of different codecs is correct, but no matter what codec you have, if for some reason the current system you have does a *lousy job* of playing it back — no matter how good the codec which produced the sound, it’s still going to sound *terrible*.
NOW..., if some QuickTime software was installed at the same time (as Safari) and it “took over” the sound operation of the machine (at least for some tasks, as is the case with QuickTime) — then — it *can sound better* under those circumstances, because QuickTime was able to do things to sound and video that Microsoft and Intel didn’t even know could be done in the first place.
That’s how I would see this situation...
—
As an additional note here, it could also mean that when something is playing “in the browser” (a plug-in for the browser), QuickTime can also be specified as the one who will take over and do the playing of the audio in the browser. In that case, that would be another instance of possibly sounding better than before.
“ithout having $5 million cash in the bank. Of course, many of these guys probably do”
Maybe not that much but a lot. Knew a few ofthose folks years ago. If any of those guys got in early, they could well be worth north of 250 mil. But relatively new guys much less - but likely after a five years there they could have 1-2m in the bank/stock options, plus an expensive home on Mercer Island.
I think if I had that much and quit, I’d be just fine - especially if I were in my 20s, 30s and had MS on the resume.
You said — I don’t know how good or bad the zune is, but breaking it seems stupid.
—
I guess that’s life in the “fast lane” over at Microsoft... LOL...
Hoping to make the hearing aid people rich, are we?
You said — true audiophiles prefer analog because it is far superior to any digital music. there is a difference. The average person has an untrained ear and cannot tell the difference.
—
That’s what I “hear” from others who claim to be “audiophiles” — but I wouldn’t know if they really do or not. I suppose they can tell...
BUT, even so... they’re not going to be able to carry it around with them in analog... LOL...
I suppose they can do the “analog trip” at home and in some special listening room... but otherwise (elsewhere...), they’re going to get digital... :-) At any rate, you’re probably talking about 1% of the market for all of these kinds of things that are sold, who are going to insist on “analog” instead of digital (if it’s even that much...).
Exactly, analog is not very portable... :-)
“In that case, that would be another instance of possibly sounding better than before.”
Or worse, depends on the starting point.
You said — Or worse, depends on the starting point.
LOL... yeah, I guess that could be true, too... if the original audio was terrible... :-)
you said - if the original audio was terrible... :-)
yep everything is relative. ipods are nice, but expensive. expensive to buy, and expensive to fill with songs.
zunes are just fine for hauling around on your hip.
I am still using my Zune 30 which I got for like 80 bucks a year and a half ago or so.
It has been though some nasty mountain bike crashes and with this audiophile earbuds I got at Costco it sounds GREAT.
Also my whole collection of 140+ CD’s took up only 20 gigs so I still have a lot of free space on this thing.
The newer MP3 players are slimmer and have better screens but I really can not think of a good reason to cough up 200 bones when this old thing still works so well.
Well, I don’t know if you’ve heard the excellent sound that comes out of it, with good earbuds — and — 256 AAC encoded music. It’s absolutely stunning and you can hear it all...
Advanced Audio Coding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
You can rip it with the good QuickTime components at 256 AAC encoding — or — you can get music from the iTunes Music Store, already encoded at 256 AAC from the music companies, themselves. That’s virtually *uncompressed* for the non-audiophile/non-trained ear... if you will.
Now, once again, I’m not one of those audiophiles so perhaps they may say that they can hear *more* from their special set-up at home with vinyl — but an iPod, with good earbuds and 256 AAC rip — and you’ve got absolute dyn-a-mite.... :-)
I really don’t think you can beat it... AND... if I understand this former Microsoft employee right, it appears he says that Microsoft has “muddied up” the sound in their Zune... that’s something to consider...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.