Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle  Learn more Countdown to Prime Day Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > mp3 discussion forum

Audiophile quality download files please

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 426-450 of 723 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Sep 2011 20:04:41 BDT
ER Gross, I don't know if you are replying to one of my posts made on 14th January but I am an audiophile and like most audiophiles, have to concede that vinyl is one of the best sounding formats, whether or not its old technology. VHS is a very poor format by any standards so you really cannot compare the 2. I am getting into high res. downloads, played via a DAC from a modified source on my Mac . I am waiting to hear this but as part of it is a birthday present for next week I cannot yet comment. Will it better vinyl? I can't wait to find out.

Posted on 29 Sep 2011 16:25:37 BDT
nephran says:
Meses been reading these forums for thems couple of months now and it seems to meses that there is thems split in thems opinions..And meses thinks this depends on the way youses play thems music...Lossy codecs seem to disregard the information needed to create a stereo image with any real depth.Theses codecs assume we cannot hear thems space around thems instruments Thus listenings on thems proper hi-fi becomes very boring very quicklies..where as listening on a portable or personal music player thems don't notice so much..Unfortunately thems hi-fis are getting increasingly smaller so thems stereo image is not so important to thems whole generation of thems pop pickers...Even meses enjoys thems 320 kbps mp3's on thems portable late at night....Thems just little ol' meses observations...Happy musical enchants thems all

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Sep 2011 08:54:42 BDT
E. R. Gross says:
Using your argument, all films would have been saved for posterity in VHS format. Imagine if all films of the '70s were only available in VHS on your 42" LED 200hz TV screen.
Perhaps you are willing to concede that it is the audiophiles who will enable your kids/grandchildren to enjoy the same music you do, in 30 years time

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2011 18:29:50 GMT
Yes, I do find vinyl more dynamic but I have to admit, convenience usually rules as jumping up and down turning the record over is a nuisance, especially to someone as lazy as me. Most new prog isn't available on vinyl anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2011 18:25:45 GMT
You certainly have a point. However I find the production values on the sort of music I listen to; (mainly prog) is usually superb. I imagine its the everyday pop music that suffers from production problems. Mind you, I listen to everything I really like on CD rather than downloaded files. What I have found is that really old stuff from the 50s and 60s is often taken from the master tapes on itunes and therefore, even in 256k mp3s (which is what itunes downloads are), can sound very much improved on the original 45s which were often terrible pressings. You have to be careful and listen to the tracks before downloading as some of them are dreadful re-recordings.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2011 16:59:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jan 2011 17:01:22 GMT
C. Rigby says:
Having recently bought some brand new records I concur (they were more dynamic to my ears compared to the cd version played in high quality separate cd player) although digital as in cd or files is more convenient which appeals to many more here I guess.
I also echo your appeal for civility. Have an opinion - even a strong one - by all means people but don't be rude or beat up the other guy with words.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2011 01:58:05 GMT
D. W. Salter says:
The production and mastering of the track have a far greater impact on the sound quality than the difference between lossless wav and a 256k mp3. There is a lot of rubbish production out there because the producers know that most people will only hear it on a rubbish system - and the music industry is having to make big cutbacks. So don't worry too much about whether you are listening to lossless wav or mp3 - its the production that counts. A 256k mp3 can sound very good if has been produced properly.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2011 12:56:43 GMT
Who is S Hall? Why does he have to be so rude? We all have different perceptions of what we hear. I only would like to argue one misconception. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if vinyl sound round and less crisp, you are not using the right record playing equipment. It SHOULD sound pretty wel much the same as CD except with MORE dynamics, MORE air and space, stageing and width and more realistic. It can cost a lot to get the best out of vinyl and cheap vinyl playing stuff will sound much worse than cheap CD playing equipment due to mistracking etc. but all things being equal, vinyl can sound absolutely amazing. Not round and less crisp though.

Posted on 5 Jan 2011 01:19:00 GMT
manu says:
oh dear. Anyone with ears over 35 yrs old (especially frequent concert attendees) is not capable of spotting the difference between HQ mp3 (320+), flac or oggvorbis or plain original CDs even thru high-end kit - try blind testing for yourselves. (pulling out a quality vinyl on quality "phono" old-style precord player thru the same amp & speakers will of course sound rounder and different (if less "crisp")
I do however agree with the "burn-in" discussion - no different from a good relationship or a good car or a good boat etc etc ... things get better when run-in......

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2011 00:44:25 GMT
Gog says:
Some new definition of "audiophile" I wasn't previously aquainted with. Is it an oxymoron, or are you just a moron? Seems to me the miserable nonsense is a description of you. I bet you don't even like music. D.Ford in the next post is deaf as well. Idiots.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2011 00:39:18 GMT
Gog says:
It's MP3s at 320kbs. Better, but no cigar.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2010 18:53:45 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 29 Dec 2010 18:54:03 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2010 18:53:40 GMT
Red says:
Hi Geoffrey
Sorry if you've mentioned it earlier in this thread
What equipment do you use for listening to music and how does it sound?
Thank you

Posted on 29 Dec 2010 03:16:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Dec 2010 03:20:46 GMT
>>"Hi Bjorn
Clearly you do find lossless files sound better than, say 256Mb"

No. Using the LAME mp3 codec anything above ~200k sounds almost always transparent to my ears (I am going to assume that you meant 256k there.).

I listen with Sennheiser HD 595, connected to the sub-woofer of my speaker system (Logitech Z-2200) for much needed amplification as these cans are pretty heavy to drive. I very rarely listen to my speaker system as it is either the speakers that sound terrible or the layout of my room.

Posted on 27 Dec 2010 14:43:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Dec 2010 14:44:01 GMT
'It is not that people can not afford lossless downloads, they are simply not offered legally at all except in obscure, hard-to-find download stores that may not even cover the artist you are looking for'

As I have said before in this thread, it depends entirely on the kind of music you are listening to. There are at least three online stores offering classical music in flac format. In all cases it is cheaper to buy a flac download than a CD. Passionato sell both flac and mp3 downloads and have special promotions selling flac at half-price; they have a very large selection on offer. If a company can sell classical music at these prices why can't other stores do it for music that sells in considerably larger volume?
Incidentally, passionato's downloading facility is provided for them by Amazon.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Dec 2010 11:04:27 GMT
Red says:
Hi Bjorn
Clearly you do find lossless files sound better than, say 256Mb
What equipment do you use for listening to your music?
Sorry.... it's Christmas Day. Well I'm just having a cup of tea and sat in the PC chair and then I flipped the power switch

Posted on 24 Dec 2010 10:49:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Dec 2010 11:01:40 GMT
Your analogy does not fit with that statement because it assumes that lossless files exist everywhere but are considerably more expensive, that is not the reality. It is not that people can not afford lossless downloads, they are simply not offered legally at all except in obscure, hard-to-find download stores that may not even cover the artist you are looking for. If torrent sites are the only ones you can find that serve what you are looking for, then what choice do you really have? Simply deny yourself of the music you love? Sure, but I can not imagine many people doing that.

It is often claimed that underserving the customer is one of the bigger sources of piracy, and I agree with that.

And by the way, in theory lossless downloads do not need to be much more expensive than mp3 files, if at all. Mpx files have been around since the mid 1990s, they were designed for the slow internet, low bandwidth and low storage space of those years. Now we have websites like Youtube where people upload 24 hours of video content every minute. If we assume the average video is 15 MBs big, that is over 21 GBs of data every single day. If big companies like Amazon can not afford installing a few dozen 2 TB hard drives to their server I would be very surprised as even I can afford that. Bandwidth is another matter of concern, matter which I'm not familiar with, but if small obscure websites can afford it, then so can Amazon I would think.

Come on amazon, buy those hard drives and start ripping & encoding, put those pesky torrent websites to shame.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 22:11:31 GMT
Sean Sankey says:
I know you are not condoning stealing music from illegal sites but your if you step back and read your comment 'It is a shame that a lot of music lovers have to go to torrent sites which are often highly illegal to get FLAC files rather than highly compressed low quality files AND have to pay for the privalege'. it is a bit ridiculous - So, by the same analogy, if I can't afford a Ferrari I have to go and steal one... ? They don't have to go, they choose to..

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 19:14:07 GMT
Hi, Hi fi I use a Lumley Sratosphere turntable, Graham arm and Transfiguration cartridge; Accuphase D700 SACD player; Converent Audio Technology tube pre-amp; Vincent hybrid valve/mosfet 200 w monobloks; all into prototype Lumley 15 driver huge speakers. Various cables, all decent quality; 15amp round pin rhodium plated mains plugs into Russ Andrews mains cables . I have an ipod that I use on holiday with Shure e350 (?) in ear phones and Westone top of the range (can't remember their number), in ears, plus some sennheiser 650 headphones if I want to listen to music off my Mac.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 13:14:15 GMT
C. Spark says:
There is some difference between mp3 players i have a creative zen x fi which sounds better than my iphone 3gs (ipod) but i got fed up with using itunes and creative centrale to manage my music and bought a cowon j3 which is regarded as the best sounding mp3 player you can get for under 300 quid ive used all of these with senheiser ie8's and may favourites the ultimate ears 10 's.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 13:03:33 GMT
Basil Hush says:
I use some folding large headphones (HD380s I think) with the netbook, they live in the bag with it. The internal speakers are absolute rubbish !

With the iPod I use some special, although cheap headphones, designed for running. Really it's only used in the gym so there's enough background noise already, the main problem is having the ear buds fall out when I'm running :)

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 12:59:52 GMT
Red says:
Basil - Have you ever noticed any difference in sonic performance between different models of iPod? Do you use the standard earbuds or have you upgraded?

Do you use the internal speakers of the netbook or do you use separate ones?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 12:52:47 GMT
Basil Hush says:
Red - serious listening is done on Genelec 1032As in a partially treated room through a Desktop Konnekt 6 convertor. I've also got 1029As for late at night when I don't want to shake the neighbours out of bed. I don't have a separate hi-fi these days. I have a little iPod I use in the gym, and a netbook that I take travelling and also listen to music on.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 12:44:20 GMT
Red says:
Hi Mrs Sherwin,

What equipment do you use hi-fi wise?

Also do you bother with personal stereo?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2010 12:42:41 GMT
Red says:

I apologise if you have already mentioned it somewhere in the discussion but what equiment do you use for music playback on your computer and also what equipment do you use for your hi-fi?

Also do you bother with personal stereo?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the mp3 discussion forum (438 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  mp3 discussion forum
Participants:  175
Total posts:  723
Initial post:  5 Oct 2009
Latest post:  2 Apr 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 22 customers

Search Customer Discussions