Stephen Mejias

Amen to your sermon, Stephen. Let's keep rockin' to CE Quality, not "CD-quality," music on our iPods in 2008!

I'm glad you had the talk, Stephen. Remember, MP3's are a gateway audio drug. Many kids don't stop with low bit downloads. They also try Emerson boomboxes, HT in a box and eventually Bose Lifestyle Sound Systems. It's an American tragedy!

We can help them get the most out of their music, and they can help us have fun and discover new music.

And remember - protection is bad, it's more fun with more people and if you're going to go all the way always use your vinyl.

John's article was great. I'd love to see more tutorial/explanatory articles along that line in the future. Especially if they have graphs!

Of course a lot of kids, too, choose to save a few bucks and illegally download most of their music (hence the crappy files), so they can buy alcohol. But also, some of the most discriminating listener/critics, i.e. Alex Ross of The New Yorker or Tommasini of NY Times, don't seem to care much about fidelity of their compressed files either, if their recent writing is any indication.Enjoyed your article Stephen!

I find that the younger generation in general is more stupid then say 50 yrs ago. What passes for great talent/music/sound now could have never passed muster back then. With mp3 and ipods being the norm now days I fear that hi end is on the way out. Why get into hi end when it will show how bad the music sounds. I will sound better on the stupid earbuds. I know I sound like a old fart but when I hear anything from the 60

There's nothing inherently wrong with an mp3. The problem is when the mp3 is reduced to a low bitrate. As much as an audiophile might try to convince one otherwise, 99.9% of people are entirely unable to distinguish between a CD and a 320kbps mp3. Heck, for most people, 192kbps would probably pass a double blind test.Gus: The difference between today and the 60's is not a decrease in musical ability, it's an increase in the quantity of music. In the 60's there weren't hundreds of teenagers in local bands playing every town across America. The influx of musicians has increased the amount of bad, sure. But it has also increased the amount of talented musicians. If your source for music is pop radio, you will wind up feeling that today's music is in shambles. But the talented musicians of today are not on the radio. The teen masses are not turning on the radio to find talent, they do so to find a catchy chorus to sing with their friends and dance to. Today's talent is found online

>I find that the younger generation in general is more stupid then say 50 yrs ago. Gosh, Gus, that's a dark outlook on things. I don't think this is true at all. If anything, kids these days are way more intelligent. They just need a little gentle direction. We can help with that.>Why get into hi end when it will show how bad the music sounds.Because hi-end also shows you how wonderful music can sound. I've had an excellent time discovering new albums that not only hold great music, but great sound. They do exist. Several young artists, including Joanna Newsom, Bill Callahan, Andrew Bird, Iron & Wine, Feist, and on and on, are releasing beautiful music.>Nobody young has records I'm happy to say that this just isn't true. More and more young people seem to be getting interested in vinyl and better sound quality. These are smart kids, who love music and technology. We can help them get the most out of their music, and they c

>There's nothing inherently wrong with an mp3. The problem is when the mp3 is reduced to a low bitrate. Fine point, newerakb. I was careful to talk to my cousin about bitrates, too. When she heard that high-rez downloads from MusicGiants, for instance, are offered at 1100kbps, she was amazed. I think some people just need to know that they have other options. They'll choose against settling for less.>As much as an audiophile might try to convince one otherwise, 99.9% of people are entirely unable to distinguish between a CD and a 320kbps mp3. Heck, for most people, 192kbps would probably pass a double blind test. I disagree with your estimate. 256-320kbps will probably fool some people some of the time, but only as long as these people don't know what to listen for. But why would anyone want to be fooled? Part of our job is to help people learn to listen. It just makes sense to me that informed people would want the best possible sound quality.

"I find that the younger generation in general is more stupid then say 50 yrs ago. What passes for great talent/music/sound now could have never passed muster back then."Wow, Gus. Thanks for dismissing not only me but an entire generation of energetic, passionate people who are making music now. What are you going to say to Gustavo Dudamel, who's 26 y.o. and became appointed as the musical director of L.A. Phil, and barnstormed through NYC this past year? What are you going to say to Alex Ross, who's not yet 40, but probably is the most influential voice in classical music today as the chief critic for The New Yorker (and whose book THE REST IS NOISE was in the top 10 Amazon list at one point?) Radiohead? Animal Collective? Tyshawn Sorey? Nico Muhly? Even an electro outfit like James Murphy's LCD Soundsystem quotes liberally from Steve Reich among other influences, and you call them stupid?Open your eyes and heart first, then your ears.

Does the file format realy make a difference when those files are played back on ipods through cheap earbuds?

>Does the file format realy make a difference when those files are played back on ipods through cheap earbuds?I think so, certainly. Simply because I've heard alarmingly great differences in sound quality between 128kbps MP3s and lossless files, even when listening to an iPod through cheap earbuds, even when listening through the cheap Dell computer speakers that came with my office laptop. Not always, mind you, but enough of the time. And, what if that person who's listening with those cheap earbuds wants to someday upgrade to better in-ear earphones? Wouldn't it be nice if that person hears the benefit of having hi-rez files? Again, personally, I just don't see why anyone would want less than the best. I feel as though having high resolution files offers a listener worlds of options -- options that they deserve. And options are good, empowering. If people decide, however, that low bitrate MP3s are "good enough" for them, that's fine with me. I just want them

I just want them to have options, and the ability to decide.

I was intrigued by the prospect of MusicGiants offering downloads at 1100kbps, but was disgusted to learn that most of their files come with DRM. Good luck getting them on your cousin's iPod. Also, the fact that their site only works with Internet Explorer is another major turn-off. Still, I'll be keeping them bookmarked in hopes they get their act together eventually.John Erle Mundlewww.dynamicrangeradio.ca

I find this amusing I was told the music I listened to back in the late 70's early 80's (punk) was stupid and a whole lot of noise especially when played through a Lloyds system. I think when the kids get a little older and have some money in their pockets they'll upgrade to something better like I did so have faith they'll come around

Great one!

Should be part of the school curiculum.

Can we give kids the same talk about compressed video too?

And what about other MP3 encoding options; for instance, LAME? Is it comparable, better than Apple lossless?

Isn't Stereophile the magazine that praises components that cost an insane amount of money yet measure horribly (tube gear, LP's, etc)? Don't they consistently say measurements only tell half the story and listening is an equally important part of the overall review? If so I find the article John wrote on MP3's to only tell half the story - there was no listening of real music at different bit rates. I think that does an injustice to the various codecs. For the music I listen to I recorded sample tracks at various bit rates and found something that worked well for me - giving me an acceptable compromise between quality and space. I think people need to make up their own mind based on listening not on graphs (which were interesting but again only a portion of the overall picture). For some lossy won't cut it while for others (the vast majority would be my guess) I think they might be hard pressed to tell a difference at certain bit rates.