Chris, those are great suggestions.

But you lost me there at the end!

Trey

Chris, have you browsed our Computer Audio, Digital Processors, and Media Servers archives, or read John Atkinson's essays, Music Served and MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD?

You might find some of your concerns addressed there.

Quote:
Why has Stereophile never interviewed the principal researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute to fully understand how MP3s came to pass and sparked the digital online music revolution? It would seem there is still a lot to be told and learned here.

In actual fact, while no, we have never interviewed the Fraunhofer reearchers, we have covered the introduction of lossy codecs in considerable depth from 1990 onward, and you can find much of that coverage in our on-line archives. See, for example, http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/56/ , from 1994.

Quote:
These same CDs can sometimes be had as MP3 files for less than $10 and can immediately be downloaded. I have been trained to understand by the press, fellow audiophiles, etc that I missing something when listening to these files and yet when I listen I still enjoy the music? I wish Stereophile could explore this phenomenon and apply some real scrutiny to the subject not just audiophile dogma. Is there a way using differential analysis ala the Bob Carver Amplifier Challenge to see exactly what's gone missing in MP3 files?

I have done technical analyses of the differences between MP3 files and their uncompressed equivalents - see http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ - and I have also performed demonstrations of the audible differences for attendees at recent audio shows and dealer evenings.

If you like the sound of an MP3, then that's fine. It means that the artefacts of the lossy coding, which will depend on the bitrate and the type of music, are below the threshold of audibility in your system. But artefacts there certainly are and because these can become more audible with ear training and exposure, we don't recommended lossy codecs be used at all.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hi Chris and welcome to the forum.

I completely agree with what you are saying and in fact I've called for and asked very similar thing myself in the past. Here are two examples:

1) Taken from one of my posts in the thread "Stereophile Volume 33 >> September 2010 Issue >>SACD mistakes"

Quote:
I keep beating the same dead horse but high resolution digital audio is available for a mere $300 via logitech's Squeezebox Touch and fully legal, non DRM'ed downloads from HDTracks, Linn Records and several others.

For the record, Stereophile most definitely hypes the now out dated CD format by continually reviewing high priced CD and SACD players from the various high end manufacturers. All of these players have at least two things in common: ridiculously high prices and high end name recognition. But the fact remains that at best all these players offer are marginal improvements for playback of a medium at the very end of its life cycle.

What Stereophile should be doing, both for its existing base of readers and in order to attract new younger readers, is providing extensive coverage of computer based digital audio. Yes I know that Stereophile continually reviews computer based products, such as USB based DACs and computer sound cards, but more often than not these reviews include the caveat that computer based audio is great for background music but offers little of value for the serious audiophile. And yes I am also aware should Stereophile decide to take a more proactive approach to computer based digital audio they would be fighting an uphill battle since most listeners equate computer based digital audio with poor sounding mp3s and low bit rate streaming audio. But computer based digital audio does have the potential and ability to become a true high end and high resolution source provided that those involved in the high end start to take it seriously and truly get behind it.

In order to do this Stereophile should stop treating computer based digital audio as just an interesting side path and start focusing on the high end abilities of many of the current devices on the market. Here's a quick list of things which can be done right now to get the ball rollog:

1) When reviewing these products don't be afraid to compare them against the best that CD/SACD playback has to offer.

2) Review some of the high resolution digital downloads currently available and compare them to their CD, SACD and VINYL counterparts.

3) Stop promoting the use of lossy compression and call it out for the all the harm this format has done to the advancement of high quality sound reproduction. This includes actively calling for the internet streaming of losslessly compressed music. Hell they can stream high quality video so why not high quality audio.

So please let's not make the same mistakes with high resolution computer based digital audio that were made with DVD-Audio and SACD.

2) Please read through the thread "Stereophile Volume 33 >> October 2010 Issue >>Squeezebox Touch review" to see further examples of my putting pressure on JA and Stereophile to do more with respect to computer based digital audio.

While I'm quite sure that JA and Stereophile have fairly valid reasons for continuing their extensive coverage of what are essentially a dying formats, meaning CDs and SACDs, I am also quite sure that their continued delay in not expanding their coverage of the meat and potatoes of computer based digital audio will cost them dearly in the long run. But I am only a subscriber and all I stand to lose is few hours of pleasant reading very month

In the meantime that void is being filled by self proclaimed but highly biased (he absolutely loves all things Apple) individuals such as the Computer Audiophile. A very sad state of affairs.

Quote:
While I'm quite sure that JA and Stereophile have fairly valid reasons for continuing their extensive coverage of what are essentially a dying formats, meaning CDs and SACDs,.................

One reason is the amount of music, already available and being released, which still favors those dying media.

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
While I'm quite sure that JA and Stereophile have fairly valid reasons for continuing their extensive coverage of what are essentially a dying formats, meaning CDs and SACDs,.................

One reason is the amount of music, already available and being released, which still favors those dying media.

Kal

Hence my saying "fairly valid reasons".

My reason for the closing part of my quoted statement, namely "I am also quite sure that their continued delay in not expanding their coverage of the meat and potatoes of computer based digital audio will cost them dearly in the long run", is that the overwhelming majority of people under age 30 listen to almost all of their music via their computer. So I guess Stereophile doesn't care about attracting this vast pool of younger listeners into the world of better sound. Too bad since I'm also quite sure that someone else is interested in these individuals and the their money. It's just too bad that most, if not all, of them will grow up to believe that a $300 iPod boom box represents high quality audio.