MovieMusic.com Message Boards: How do you listen?

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

How do you listen?

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: How do you listen?

Stargate Standard Userer	The weekend is here and I have nothing to do at the moment, so I'm curious as to how everyone out there enjoys their film music collection. For me, I have four main methods: In the car: Standard car CD player. Traveling pretty much anywhere, I always make sure I have a good action/adventure/suspense score to keep me company. I usually play my CD-R's since I'm paranoid about heat, cold, scratches, etc. At work: Laptop with Sony noise-canceling headphones. I listen to quieter stuff which helps me to concentrate. I use MP3's that I rip at 320kbps for ultimate sound quality (and file size... my collection is quickly filling up a 500gb hard drive). At home: Philips home entertainment system. This is where I pop in new stuff like Godzilla or The Wind and the Lion so I can hear everything in its full glory. On the run: Actually, literally on the run. I run five or so miles a day and use my SanDisk Sansa and Sennheiser PMX100 headphones (awesome, awesome headphones). I customize my play list, selecting some of my favorite cues. You'd be very surprised at what some Zimmer/Arnold/Poledouris/etc action cues can do for you while running. That's pretty much it. I rarely go a day without listening to something. Now, how do you listen?
posted 08-18-2007 10:03 AM PT (US)

Camillu Standard Userer	You just gave me a huge urge to go out jogging... I'm on the same lines - new stuff at home (but don't have such a fancy system yet), most stuff in the car. But I can't at work since my patients might find it rude
posted 08-18-2007 10:07 AM PT (US)

MWRuger Standard Userer	I use an iPod for mobile listening and a computer for listening at home. My computer is equipped with a 5.1 THX speaker system and a high end audio card.
posted 08-18-2007 10:45 AM PT (US)

Erik Woods Standard Userer	iTunes and my iPod. -Erik-
posted 08-18-2007 01:19 PM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	I used to strictly listen to CDs on my CD player until I moved the computer to a different room a few weeks ago. Since I spend a lot of my time at home in front of the PC, and the good amp is in the other room now, I hooked up my PC to the Arcam amp so I can listen at least at night via headphones (during the days, it's the bad old budget-price Denon system for now). I'm currently in the middle of ripping my entire collection as FLACs. Amarok is my player of choice. At work I'm using Jet Audio, but as soon as Amarok comes out for Windows, I'll switch. I'll also need an external 2.5" HD to carry my collection to work. On my bike on the way to work, my Sony Ericsson phone comes to the rescue.
posted 08-18-2007 03:05 PM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	At my desk: iTunes (192 kbps AAC) and Harmon Kardon SoundSticks II Walking, biking, etc.: iPod nano (192 kbps AAC) and Sennheiser CX-300s or Etymotic ER-6is At work: A truly dreadful pair of Sony speakers (hopefully to soon be replaced by an Altec Lansing iM600) In the car: A lovely CD/MP3/WMA/AAC player with iPod and USB inputs in my VW Jetta. Quite versatile. A day never passes for me without listening to something. Today was Harry Potter 3, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev. [Message edited by NeoVoyager on 08-18-2007]
posted 08-18-2007 03:28 PM PT (US)

vdemona Standard Userer	At home while working around the house I listen to music on my computer with iTunes or Songbird. While driving I listen to my cds on the cd player, though increasingly on my mp3 player through an FM transmitter. On the bus or walking - USB storage mp3 player. Relaxing at home on my stereo system - a Kenwood 5-disc CD changer, RCA Pro-Logic receiver, RCA 5.1 speaker system.
posted 08-18-2007 05:09 PM PT (US)

shureman Standard Userer	On my ancient, 1970 " state-of-the art " JBL speakers and McIntosh amps. At home only, fairly loud (rarely use headphones) and usually while surfing the net..... The Thorens turntable, purchased "used" in 1968, works as good as the day I bought it ! Fortunate, since they went out of business years ago...... [Message edited by shureman on 08-22-2007]
posted 08-19-2007 08:13 AM PT (US)

Swashbuckler Standard Userer	At Home: An extremely expensive 7.1 surround system (with full bandwidth speakers); I can play my vinyl, cassettes (very rare), CDs, laserdiscs, DVDs, VHS, DVD-Audio and SACD. My computer is in the same room as the stereo, so if I'm using it, I'm listening to the stereo (unless I'm making a mix, of course). In the Car: I have an mp3 CD player, and I have stocked my car with a myriad of mp3 CDs and my own mixes. Commuting: I have an iAudio X5 that I run Rockbox software on. Some of my collection is still in mp3 format, but I've begun to use the more space-effective* Ogg Vorbis codec. I use Sennheisser headphones. I actually saw a guy on the subway the other day who had the same kind as I did. There was a brief not between the two of us as we acknowledged our mutual love of good sound and indifference to being seen looking like Princess Leia in public. * - Ogg Vorbis is also intrinsically gapless, which mp3s are not. Mp3s require specific metadata to be gapless, or at least a program that can accurately crossfade the two tracks seamlessly, which I have thus far not been impressed with. [Message edited by Swashbuckler on 08-19-2007]
posted 08-19-2007 08:32 AM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	Ogg is also "good" as it's royalty-free and not restricted by patents and the like. Unfortunately, my Sony Ericsson won't play Oggs, so I've reluctantly switched to MP3 as my portable format.
posted 08-19-2007 02:49 PM PT (US)

Kevin Standard Userer	With my ears
posted 08-19-2007 03:24 PM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	Well I always use protection and lube!
posted 08-19-2007 09:51 PM PT (US)

Erik Woods Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Swashbuckler: * - Ogg Vorbis is also intrinsically gapless, which mp3s are not. Mp3s require specific metadata to be gapless, or at least a program that can accurately crossfade the two tracks seamlessly, which I have thus far not been impressed with. Ummm... in iTunes and on my iPod my MP3's play gapless with no crossfade. This was something fixed with the release of iTunes 7. -Erik-
posted 08-19-2007 11:37 PM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	Yawn....but there are much better MP3 players out there than the iPoo.
posted 08-20-2007 01:11 AM PT (US)

Swashbuckler Standard Userer	quote: Ummm... in iTunes and on my iPod my MP3's play gapless with no crossfade. This was something fixed with the release of iTunes 7 Yes, but as I said, they are not intrinsically gapless. What is happening there is that the iPod is indeed crossfading the tracks so that the succession is seamless. This does have an effect on battery life. Besides, as has been pointed out, the iPod doesn't really sound that good, and I loathe iTunes anyway. [Message edited by Swashbuckler on 08-20-2007]
posted 08-20-2007 07:34 AM PT (US)

Erik Woods Standard Userer	Well, on personal experience the iPod sounds just fine. I've had one ever since the first 5GB model came out. I've had no problems with any of the 4 iPods I've owned. As for iTunes... yes, it's memory hog but again no problems with the software whatsoever! It keeps my music nice and organizes and is perfect for syncing up my iPod. As for the gapless play back. No, it's NOT a cross fade! Before iTunes 7, yes, you needed to have the cross fade button selected to have tracks play "smoothly" into one another... but with iTunes 7 there is the option to play your music gapless meaning no cross fade or gaps between the music. They play from one track to the other without break as they would on CD. This works with both iTunes 7 and the newer iPods. -Erik-
posted 08-20-2007 08:30 AM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	I listen to music through my headphones but either with my Creative Zen mp3 player, or my computer. I've got the Sony MDR V-600's headphones which are very nice and noise canceling headphones. Basically they council the outside world and no one can hear your music. Edit: BTW I plan to buy an iPod 80GB in November. So those of you who say, "iPods suck" give em' a chance. I was one of those people but I will be giving it a chance because I want the gapless playback feature. My Creative Zen doesn't have gaspless other wise I wouldn't switch if it did. [Message edited by BigT1981 on 08-20-2007]
posted 08-20-2007 10:46 AM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by BigT1981: Edit: BTW I plan to buy an iPod 80GB in November. So those of you who say, "iPods suck" give em' a chance. I was one of those people but I will be giving it a chance because I want the gapless playback feature. My Creative Zen doesn't have gaspless other wise I wouldn't switch if it did. I've considered getting an Ipod several times, but I've always found something better. The Ipod is said to sound terrible without its "stock earpuds" which are already cheap. High-End ear moduels really expose the iPods lack of fidelity. (Westone UM2, Shure E4,E5, Super.Fi Pro) But sounds amazing on the Zen Vision M or iAudioX5. The Zen Vision M, can play just about every major video format MPEG,AVI,WMV, (Divx, Xvid...) With the iPod are'nt you limited to only MP4 or some proprietary Apple format? The Ipods screen supports 60,000 colors. The Zen Vision M supports 200,000. Both the Vision M and iAudio have built in FM Tuners, and can record from a built in microphones, or from the radio. While the iPods needs additional accessories, for a radio, and can't do voice recording at all. The Zen Vision M works without any Software bloating the computer. As long as it supports mass storage devices. Ipods needs iTunes the whole time right? Check out these funny YouTube video for a halrious animation comparing the Ipod and the Zen Vision M. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOkixXgMV4g
posted 08-20-2007 11:58 AM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	I guess I can add too that the Ipod is more expensive that the other plays despite its lack of features and quality. [Message edited by TimT on 08-20-2007]
posted 08-20-2007 11:58 AM PT (US)

vdemona Standard Userer	Well I had an iPod and it was wonderful for 5 months and then it conked out on me. 3rd generation 20GB click wheel. Battery couldn't hold a charge, hard drive clicking and whirring sounds, eating up music files while synching. Too many problems. I bought it used so it turned out to only be a $150.00 doorstop instead of a $300.00 one. I can't imagine why a person would keep buying them brand new with the problems some the models have. Too expensive! I prefer my cheap USB storage mp3 player these days. At least if it goes bad I can rest easy that it only cost me $25.00.
posted 08-20-2007 02:44 PM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Erik Woods: As for the gapless play back. No, it's [b]NOT a cross fade! Before iTunes 7, yes, you needed to have the cross fade button selected to have tracks play "smoothly" into one another... but with iTunes 7 there is the option to play your music gapless meaning no cross fade or gaps between the music.[/B] It must still be an iTunes thing, because to my knowledge (and I admit I might be a mistaken here) it's a deficiency of the MP3 format that causes some tracks to end up slightly longer than their audio content is. Perhaps iTunes just buffers the next few seconds in advance and cuts off the file once only silence remains. Anyway, I wouldn't spend a significant amount of money on any of these proprietary hardware players. I happen to have a mobile phone that plays MP3s as a bonus, so I use them, but if a company wants me to spend money on a dedicated player, it has to support open formats. And have a decent user interface. And not restrict my access to the data stored on it.
posted 08-20-2007 04:19 PM PT (US)

Swashbuckler Standard Userer	quote: As for the gapless play back. No, it's NOT a cross fade! Before iTunes 7, yes, you needed to have the cross fade button selected to have tracks play "smoothly" into one another... but with iTunes 7 there is the option to play your music gapless meaning no cross fade or gaps between the music. They play from one track to the other without break as they would on CD. This works with both iTunes 7 and the newer iPods. Actually, it is. The transition is being synchronized via metadata written into the head of the file. Lame mp3 encoders have supported this for some time; what iTunes is doing when it scans the music on your iPod is writing the metadata into the files. As Marian points out, this can sometimes mess with the other metadata the file has (tags, timing data, etc.) and vice versa.
posted 08-20-2007 07:20 PM PT (US)

Erik Woods Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Swashbuckler: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>As for the gapless play back. No, it's NOT a cross fade! Before iTunes 7, yes, you needed to have the cross fade button selected to have tracks play "smoothly" into one another... but with iTunes 7 there is the option to play your music gapless meaning no cross fade or gaps between the music. They play from one track to the other without break as they would on CD. This works with both iTunes 7 and the newer iPods.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it is. The transition is being synchronized via metadata written into the head of the file. Lame mp3 encoders have supported this for some time; what iTunes is doing when it scans the music on your iPod is writing the metadata into the files. As Marian points out, this can sometimes mess with the other metadata the file has (tags, timing data, etc.) and vice versa. Anywho... it works just fine. I have no problems with MP3 gaps. Everything plays nice and smooth as if it were on a CD. -Erik-
posted 08-20-2007 11:35 PM PT (US)

gkgyver Standard Userer	I listen to my scores exclusively in my car (or ANY car) and with my Sony CD player. I also have a radio/CD/tape player that I mainly (not to say only) use for audio books. I listen to them while writing music on my PC, it somehow helps me to keep the brain moving. I'm not interested at all in getting an iPod. Isn't the sound quality below CD standard? I like my scores crisp and crystal clear.
posted 08-21-2007 09:23 AM PT (US)

Erik Woods Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by gkgyver: I'm not interested at all in getting an iPod. Isn't the sound quality below CD standard? I like my scores crisp and crystal clear. Yes... it is... but anything 192kAAC/224kMP3 or higher and you have to have super human hearing to tell the difference. -Erik-
posted 08-21-2007 11:31 AM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by gkgyver: I'm not interested at all in getting an iPod. Isn't the sound quality below CD standard? I like my scores crisp and crystal clear. As Erik said, test after test has proven that even "experts" in the field find it very difficult to (read: most cannot) distinguish between 192+ kbps AAC or 320 kbps MP3 and the original CD recording. I get people rolling their eyes at my audiophile tendencies all the time, because I can pick out 128 AAC (160 MP3) from CD quality pretty easily. But with my upper-end earphones I cannot distinguish between 192k VBR AAC and CD. That's all that matters to me. Maybe 27 people on earth can. Good for them. If you're remaining shackled to CD players simply because of this contrived lack of sound quality, then that's just silly. [Message edited by NeoVoyager on 08-21-2007]
posted 08-21-2007 11:42 AM PT (US)

gkgyver Standard Userer	Just a question, no need to call me silly I have to admit, I've never heard a single note with an iPod, I just assumed that it would have to show some drawbacks in sound quality because of the small size.
posted 08-21-2007 11:59 AM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	Hmm, I remain shackled to CD players because much of the stuff I am interested in listening to... remains only available on CD. I don't have the time to transfer anything from one format to another. Having time to file digitally is a serious consideration when there is not enough time in the day to begin with... which is determined by life's priorities. For me, right now there are many more things ahead of "how and where to listen to music" but at least I have CD players in those spots where time is spent doing life's other priorities!
posted 08-21-2007 12:03 PM PT (US)

Swashbuckler Standard Userer	No, iPods just don't sound that good because of the crappy software on them. A decent bit rate compressed file, while not perfect, is more than listenable with a decent delivery system. [Message edited by Swashbuckler on 08-21-2007]
posted 08-21-2007 01:34 PM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Erik Woods: Yes... it is... but anything 192kAAC/224kMP3 or higher and you have to have super human hearing to tell the difference. 192k MP3s are the bare minimum, everything below that has very obvious compression artifacts when it comes to certain sounds, e.g. percussion or snare drums. I never bothered finding the limit of recognisability, but one of the "official" bitrates is 192, and that's just barely adequate. (Though it is ok for stuff I play while on the bike)
posted 08-21-2007 02:16 PM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	To put it bluntly: 192k MP3 != 192k AAC. MP3 is MPEG 1.0 audio, and AAC is MPEG 4.0 audio. Simple as that. Since AAC is really just the next advancement of the open standard created by the same group that culminated in MP3 so many years ago, it naturally follows that it is more techologically advanced. As a general guide, 128k AAC sounds better than 160k MP3, and 192k AAC > 224k MP3. Regarding the open standards confusion... no matter how hard I try, some just seem unable to grasp the fact that AAC (the codec used by default in iTunes) is a completely open standard - moreso than MP3. It's simply that most hardware developers have not, by and large, implemented it yet (there are some exceptions: Microsoft, SanDisk, Sony, Nokia, Real...). Please don't take me to be rude... I really don't mean to be. I'm only trying to dispel some of the myths and misunderstanding surrounding portable players and audio codecs.
posted 08-21-2007 06:51 PM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	I can even tell the difference between 192 to 320k bit rates. I prefer having scores at 320k. I'd have them as lossless rips but I don't have the hard drive space for it.
posted 08-21-2007 08:29 PM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	It's easy to tell between 192k and 320k MP3, but much less so with AAC.
posted 08-21-2007 09:28 PM PT (US)

gtknox Non-Standard Userer	I listen when: at the computer driving and when I run every night.
posted 08-22-2007 10:00 AM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by NeoVoyager: Regarding the open standards confusion... no matter how hard I try, some just seem unable to grasp the fact that AAC (the codec used by default in iTunes) is a completely open standard - moreso than MP3. Define "open"? Because I don't know the AAC situation, but MP3 is anything but open. In many situations, you have to pay high royality fees to distribute MP3s. And if you write an MP3 encoder or decoder (i.e. player), you have to pay anyway. Case in point, even if I wanted to use MP3s in my free video game instead of Ogg (which I happily ended up with), I couldn't do that without paying a lot of money. And without using semi-legal software for that matter, because the free available decoder libs obviously aren't all officially licensed, either.
posted 08-22-2007 11:03 AM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	I could be wrong, but I believe AAC is royalty-free. I don't want to spend the time reading the entire Wikipedia article. EDIT: I'm not wrong: "No licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format." (Rather different from MP3, which provided Fraunhofer IIS with a tidy 100 million Euros in licensing fees in 2005 alone!) AAC is promoted by the developers of the MP3 format (Fraunhofer) as the de facto successor to MP3. [Message edited by NeoVoyager on 08-22-2007]
posted 08-22-2007 06:23 PM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	Interesting, but: [quote="Wikipedia"]However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs, that require encoding or decoding. [5] It is for this reason FOSS implementations such as FAAC and FAAD are distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement. AAC requires a patent license, and thus uses proprietary technology. But contrary to popular belief, it is not the property of a single company, having been developed in a standards-making organization.[/quote] Apparently, source code can be distributed freely, so that's at least better than MP3. However, it seems distributing pre-compiled binaries still requires a fee, so... go Ogg and FLAC.
posted 08-23-2007 02:04 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB