Mp3 Vs CD and Hifi

[Win_98]

I have to say that MP3 sound much worst then what I hear on Hifi Vhs or Laser Disc. It sound kind of good at first but after awhile you can tell that there a flaw in the quality of the sound. there is this chisling or muddling sound in it that you can hear in the background. the quality was real good and perfect before encoded to mp3 as far as I can tell. A major tradeoff if you ask me.
It is not a compressed wav file but a degraded compressed sound format. There is no way in the world you can have quality sound with such high compression ratio of 1:10, at most is 1:4 if you want to retain original quality which is the most a compressed wave file can do.
DO YOU GUY LISTEN TO CD ANYMORE, I GUESS YOU BEEN ON THIS MP3 SO LONG THAT YOU'RE FORGOTTEN ABOUT QUALITY OR EVEN WATCH HIFI MOVIE ANYMORE. tHE rEASON WHY im saying this is because mp3 killing my ear instead and you know I couldn't stand for more then a few min. I have encoded mp3 myself, only to notice a major drop in quality so it not the coder fault doing bad coding etc, it the MP3 itself.

[NDC]

If you make the bitrate 128 or higher, you won't notice much of a difference between CD and MP3 quality! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[Roy]

No MP3 will ever be as good as "CD quality". The file size is the clue. When you compress audio data that much, you have to be throwing away some things you hope will not be missed. After a while of critical listening, the subtle differences begin to reveal themselves. That's where you are and there's no turning back. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif Dolby AC2 is much less damaging and has general acceptance in the Pro Sound / Broadcast world.

[crazyray]

192 bitrate is the breakpoint for me...lower than that I find unacceptable even for casual listening.

[canit]

Stereo Review's Sound & Vision magazine have done a some head to head articles between CD and different codec technologies, Download Showdown 1 & 2;

Download Showdown (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/SoundAndVision/FrameSet/0,1670,_sl_SoundAndVision_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1653_ cm_129_4395_1_cm_00,00.html)


Shortened link to prevent frame blowout. -Socalgal

[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 12-11-2000).]

[RLT65]

I will admit, MP3's may not sound absolutely perfect, but considering the cost of the files I will never complain. To me, they sound great.

RT

[Win_98]

tHEY SOUND ok at first but as you listen more and more to it get worst, doesn't matter if you're listening to a different song etc.
Some are really bad quality while other sound a little better. I suppose higher bit rate would help say 192Kbs/256Kbps but I find almost no one that would use it seem like they prefer 128bps alway. we have so much space these day, you know 30gig, 40gig etc why 128K bit rate all the time, that just being cheap. Most of the mp3 I hear chiseling sound, or drowning in water, in otherword distorted not crystal clear as from the original source. Encode music from cd to WAV, keep the WAV file don't delete it. encode to mp3 then compare the difference. while wav sound exactly like the CD and MP3 is somewhat degraded a little that you will notice it after listening a few time. but what if the source was bad quality, then it even worst when encoded to mp3. LOL. I have my sound card hooked up to the receiver, so it already enhanced as is.
Im listening to mp3 now, and it skipping and choking every few sec. I try winamp, windows media player 7.0 both did the same thing. As internet connection get faster for everyone say ASDL and CABLE and harddrive space is not a problem I see a very good reason to get rid of MP3 format all together and do more research on compressing WAV format. So far it up to 4x which mean that it only 2.5 times bigger then mp3 format and sound a hell of alot better. ex 4meg mp3 =10meg wav file.

[3beanlimit]

Interesting topic.
Lots of things affect the quality of mp3's.
First off, bitrate is the main thing. 128 bitrate isn't cd quality. In fact I have a cassette player that sounds better than mp3 at 128 bitrate. 192 isn't too bad but I like a cutoff of 256.

Another thing that affects quality, is the encoding engine. If it was encoded with Xing's encoder, well...bad news. I prefer either Lame (http://www.sulaco.org/mp3) or BladeEnc (http://bladeenc.mp3.no/) to most encoding engines that are affordable. In fact I'd rather use Lame than Franhoffer's own engine. Both Lame and BladeEnc are free.

How about the rip? If it isn't a quality rip in the first place, your going to have trouble with the sound quality.

By Win_98
I suppose
higher bit rate would help say 192Kbs/256Kbps but I find almost no one
that would use it seem like they prefer 128bps alway. we have so much
space these day, you know 30gig, 40gig etc why 128K bit rate all the
time, that just being cheap.

Yep hard drives and faster connections, (cable and beyond) may kill mp3 someday. In fact DVD Audio may hasten its demise. The new format of DVD Audio at 24bit and a sample rate of 94KHZ, an mp3 of a 5 minute song done from DVD Audio at that rate would be about 50 megs in size! Just as well stick to a 16 bit,44.1 khz wav file.

As for different formats, I don't have a link anymore but you can try Monkey Audio. Just do a search for it. It's a lossless type of compression. You get about a 2 to 1 compression. I think the proggie is free the last time I checked.

Another good scheme is called TAC (for Transparent Audio Compression) (http://kk-research.hypermart.net/) I've tried this demo and compared the result to a straight wav file in Cool Edit and see very little difference. This format isn't free.

Finally here's a great site for more info about mp3's including a blind listening test of comparing different bitrates.

r3mix. (http://www.r3mix.net/) This site also has info on different rippers, encoders etc. etc.. Hope this helps. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif


[This message has been edited by 3beanlimit (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Win_98]

WAV is capable of 4:1 compression. I think microsoft is already using it in windows98, SE and ME. Which is pretty good and get perfect quality. Since space isn't much of a problem anymore I see a very good reason to go back to WAV and abandon mp3 as they were just unsuitable for us quality freak. hehe. If you're interested search for goldwave or goldwave.com and this WAV/MP3 editor allow you to compress WAV file 4:1 which is called 4bit Stereo 44K WAV, dunno know why they called that as it confusing making some think that it is even worst quality then 8bit 22K mono wav. but if you listen to it yourself you cant tell any different from 16bit 44K stereo sound.

[Win_98]

Hey you guy gotta check out this program it work very well, it not just an editor allow you to play sound file in any format and convert between them as well. I think it sound better then winamp maybe more useful too.

[NDC]

L.A.M.E is what I use with Audio Grabber and it works great!

[3beanlimit]

Win_98.
I'm using a program called Cool Edit that can do the same thing. In fact you can convert most sound file formats to almost anything you like. It even comes with Franhoffers codec. However, I still like L.A.M.E. for mp3 encoding. Try it at a 256 bitrate. I doubt you'll be able to hear a difference between that bitrate and a 16 bit 44.1 khz wav file.
And the file would be smaller since its compression ratio is around 5.5 to one.

As far as using straight wav files, I'm sure that someday we will, as our pipes get fatter, and the size of harddrives increase. CD burners are all the rage now and even getting cheaper. So other than download time, the season is upon us.

[DemonKnight]

I've been listening to MP3s and my CDs I get them from for over a year now and at 128k compression they sound the same to me. Also i live in the country so even with my "fast"56K modem speed 3 megs takes 20 fricking minutes! I wouldent be DLing a 10 meg wav file when I could get a 1 meg mp3 of the same song and not notice any difference. personaly though I like the .rm format more than any thing. has any one tried the .ogg format? I used a little program I got from softseek that could compress to ogg and for some reason the file came out 5 megs at 112k and then i redid the file at 128k mp3 compression and it was only 3 megs, (then for the hell of it I use real producer and it was only like 2 megs) and all 4 files (wav, mp3, off, rm) sounded the same to me.

[Krymson]

128kbit mp3s will sound good if theyre encoded right, but if you turn the sound up(and you have good spekaers/ sound card) occasionally you will notice distortions compared to the cd version of the same song. the only reason I would use .rm is for an mp3 player, since the sound quality on earphones is nowhere near the sound quality of a good pair of speakers, so you wouldnt be able to tell the difference.
Occasionally I will get songs encoded at higher bitrates which actually have more hissing and distortion than 128 kbit versions. But maybe thats just me.

[Win_98]

That exactly what it is, I have it amplified. It suppose to sound better but it worst. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif From computer to receiver to amplified speaker. Thats 2x amplified. Should sound twice as good right? Most of the mp3 soung are distorted. All are I guess but Im saying some is more distorted then other. I have heard some really horrible one that deserve to be deleted. Bottom line is, if MP3 is just as good then there really no reason for any CD music anymore is there? It may be worst then tapes as well as far I can remember. Demonking, some people have really good hearing and they can tell, while some don't because they have never ever heard such good quality music before. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 12-14-2000).]

[DemonKnight]

Dude, this is the second time you aint goten my name right. just call me DK. I'll admit my speakers and sound card aint the best (lebtech speakers, the sound card is a Yamaha opl3 that came with my computer. The speakers replaced the old ones I had wich completely blew junks.)

[JayMan]

Ok, win_98, you have to be very carefull when using a setup like that. Really you should use un-ampped speaker if you are using a reciever/amp. Really ur getting 3x amplifaction as your sound card also acts as an amp. Basically for best results you should be using low volume from your soundcard, non-powered speakers, and adjust the volume on your reciever. Think of it this way, your soundcard acts as a pre-amp, the reciever a power-amp, if you have a hi pre-amp signal this WILL distort when in the power-amp stage (this is how guitarists get that classic distortion sound, nothing beats a marshall cranked at full gain/pre-amp, incase u don't know i am a guitarist), I know the non-cd quality you are talking about, BUT truely it doesnt' worry me, i love music, fair enuff harddrives are huge now, but cd's still hold 650-700MB, 74-80Mins cd-audio, or instead use mp3's on that cd, u'll get alot more minutes of listening from it then thats for sure! Try getting a good encoding proggie, encode something at the max bitrate it will allow and also use VBR (variable bit rate), this will change the bitrate as required to use higher compression without lossing quality, e.g. if you set to 256Kbit VBR, at times it may actually go to 128Kbit, or 192Kbit. Anyways, i truely think your just alittle too fussy if u ask me! Anyways, if you dont' like mp3 THAT much, don't use it! have u tried VQF files? they have much better treble than mp3s and offer greater compression ratio. If your that serious about ur sound, get rid of them powered speakers, make sure u got a good soundcard and reciever, hook up a nice set of good speakers, JBL are always nice.

JayMan

[Krymson]

Seriously dude, i think mebbe your amps are distorting your mp3s.

[SithLord075]

Since we're on the subject, I thought you might find this a little interesting (shame on you Nap users!)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_starves.html

[crazyray]

Nice link SithLord! BTW, did you know that Kid Rock is/was the ******* son of David Lee Roth?

[Win_98]

Jayman, I love music very much, and the better the quality the more I enjoy it. a horrible sound quality in music can be awful compared to those that aren't. mp3 sound pretty good well sometime but I notice it because the music is good not the quality of the music. so you see what I mean now. good music, so so quality. hope that explain why some enjoy it so much while other don't. it like if you hear something that you haven't heard before or haven't listen for awhile you tend not to pay attention to quality. very hard to explain but majority of people don't care much about quality if it good enought to hear then it awesome quality to them.

[OuTpaTienT]

MP3s can sound just excellent. This is the main reason I've always gone to the USENET newsgroups for my MP3s, or just make my own.

Anything encoded under 160kbps just isn't worth keeping. Most of my collection is at 192kbps up to 256kbps, & one CD at 320kbps.
And the one I have encoded at 320kbps (Extreme's first release - self-titled) I'll bet NOBODY can distinguish the MP3s from the original CD tracks. No way, no how.

Win_98, dude, what are ya doing??? Runnin' the signal through a receiver/amp and then into amplified speakers ? Don't take this the wrong way...but are you retarded? There is no way you're gonna get good sound through a setup like that. Except for maybe one infinitely small balance point between the amps you're gonna get nothing but distortion from one amp or the other...most likely from both. Kill one the amps (probably the speakers built-in amp would be the best one to cut out).

Then get a hold of some GOOD QUALITY MP3s. If you can't find any, let me know and I'll send you one of tracks from my Extreme rip. Then if it still sounds crappy to you, you'll know it's a problem with your system...because I guarantee these tracks at 320kbps sound awesome.

[AMD kicks]

If the mp3 file is of good quality, for example, 256kbps/vbr/cbr or higher and was encoded continuously wo system interruption, I believe it will sound better than cds. This is because a computer is far superior than most cd player in decoding the music files. I have compared my mp3s at 320kbps vbr/cbr to my Nakamichi cd player and the mp3s alway sounds better. A possible reason being is even though cds is inherently of higher standards than mp3's, a typical cd player can't process accurately all the bits there and is probably dropping alot of them. A dvd player playing cd music would be a better match for good mp3s since they of course come with faster processors. I listen mostly with my Grado headphones which are more accurate sounding than most desktop speakers.

[Win_98]

Ya sound good to some people if mp3 is all they listen to. If you did some comparison you will notice. If you didn't oh well, and that probably why. I have recorded music cd to VHS HIFI right? Sounded the same to me, this blows me away. Did the same thing with mp3, hmm slightly dropped but some people won't notice if they don't have quality stuff like I have. BTW: Hooking your soundcard to a receiver sound much much better because it get rid of all those hiss sound as well. The receiver filter it for you and even add pro logic surround sound effect. Not to mention there are alot of crappy mp3 running around lately this is one of the reason I have lost interest in mp3. If someone said it sound good for then good for them but for me it just didn't cut it out. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif LOL I'm a quality freak, must be as good as CD to enjoy them.

[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 12-17-2000).]

[Warthog]

Win_98, YOU are the problem. Do what Outpatient and the others have said: change your speaker setup and get some good mp3s!!!

I have my awesome (expensive) stereo hooked up to my comp via reciever AND have high quality mp3s. You know what? I don't notice a difference at all!

Dl-ing mp3s is SURELY a lot better than paying $17 per cd.

Warthog

[AMD kicks]

I like to explain further why I think mp3 can sound better than cds. I think to understand the weakness of cd sound you have to see how they go from bits to sound which both are of course differ. First remember that with any music playback, perfect syncing is the goal since music is a continuous output. We all know the importance of continuity of the output, just try playing a DVD disc then launching an application in the middle and you'll know how important it is. On a typical, non-highend cd player, the continuity of the output is dependent on the laser mechanism of the player which is not always perfectly in sync because it is after all a mechanical system and can't have zero variation. A computer decoding a mp3 file on the other hand, is not affected by any mechanical system. The file is first loaded from hard drive(mechanical) to RAM(electrical) and then processed from there on(all electrical systems). The point is, a mp3 continuous output is not affected by any mechanical systems and thus is more accurate. One might argue that the encoding of the mp3 is flawed too since it rely on the laser mechanism as well. However, during the encoding process, continuity is of no
importance since the information here is data and not music, continuity is only important in decoding or playback. So this is the reason I think mp3 is better sounding than cds. Above, I was careful to state "a typical, non-highend cd player". There are cd players that compensate for the mechanical variation by utilising actual RAM-type memory to re-organize all the bits so that they are in perfect sync/continuity, Much like the mp3 process above. These highend players like the $5000 plus Mark Levinson for example, reproduce cd music much more accurate than normal cd players. And they too are more accurate than a computer because they often use multiple esoteric sound processors and they are in a electrically quieter environment than a computer.

[canit]

AMD Kicks show me a double blind test done by Stereophile, Sound & Vision or some other well respected audio authority stating the superiority of MP3 over CD(which is the uncompressed source of most MP3's anyway). And as for good sounding CD players, any mid-priced stand alone DVD player with 24bit/96Khz DAC's will sound better than all but the most expensive soundcards.

[AMD kicks]

I can't say specifically that Stereophile or others have stated anything about the superiority of either format, however, I believe it is the audiophile community's repeated acknowledgement that mechanical systems are in fact inferior to electrical ones. For example, audiophiles applauded the arrival of the digital cd player as the replacement of the cassette in the early 80's. This was because they all knew that the cassette player would never be anyway near perfect since it was heavily mechanical and the error of the tape head mechanism(wow-flutter rating) would make it forever flawed. This was also why so many of them never gave up LPs. So when the cd came they thought finally a format existed that yielded the best of what the LPs and cassette had combined. To them the cds was like the LPs in that it had very good high freguency range(LPs max freq. was about 45,000khz, the cd is still at 22,000khz(with 44,000khz sampling rate), cassettes about 17,000khz at best with high bias tapes) and it was like the cassette in that it didn't have the fast deteroration rate of the LPs and required less maintenance. Still not all was perfect, soon after the arrival the players, audiophiles noticed that they too were still subject to the same mechanical flaws and error of the LPs and cassette but although not as bad. At that time they were aware that the transport of the player(the part that rotate and stablize the disc) had a direct affect on the sound of the player. So as a result, many manufacturers like Meridian and Krell, implement innovative designs to maximize stablility. Meridian, for example, used a patented integrated drawer/laser unit to cut down on moving part that meant more vibration. Krell used a top loading design with a balancing plater that sits on top of the disc itself to reduce vibration. These are just a few examples of what was devised. So thus, I think it is safe to say that the mechanical transport(tray/laser unit) of any cd player(includes cdrom) is the weakess link in the chain. Anyways, with the arrival of DSP, audiophile got around this weak link by using it to carefully re-arrange all the bits that might be mis-aligned by the transport before final conversion to analog. So todays highend players all feature some kind of transport stablization scheme and massive DSP untilization.
So this is one advantage that mp3 playback has over cd playback(note I am saying playback not anything about either format or standards).
On the two formats, yes the cd format is superior to mp3 since it is as stated the uncompressed source of most mp3s. However, to say because mp3 is compressed it can't possibly be better sounding than cds is wrong. Remember that cds its self were compressed in the encoding and DVD is also a highly compressed format. My point is simple, I think the mp3 format at its highest specs and playing in its normal environment which consists of a fast PC and good sound card can be better sounding(I am not saying its a superior format) than a cd played in its normal environment which consist of about a $300 cd player. I think by virtue of having a pure electrical retrieval layout from RAM to Proc. to sound card out, the mp3 makes up more than it lost in the compression.
As to DVD player and cds, I have said that this could be a match for the computer/mp3 combo. A DVD player will have better processors than a cd player and will do justice to the cd format by rendering all the bits on the disc. It also benefit from a better laser unit. Still, it too is a mechanical system.
In the last decade, there are growing talk about a pure electrical retrieval system. We have already seen them in portable mp3 players. The vision is to have a very high definition format(perhaps DVD audio) delivered not on disc platers but on memory cards/ or cubes. This would eliminate all mechanical parts once and for all. But until prices on these memory drop a hundred fold/MB it will only be a vision.

[AMD kicks]

I agree, almost all the mp3s on the net are of very poor quality. Most of the them were probably encoded by someone who has scratched up cds and were browsing the net at the same time they were encoding it.

[OuTpaTienT]

...but are you retarded?

hmmm, at least ONE of my questions got answered.

[netsurfer]

More than anything, it's probably that you don't know what you're doing (ripping/encoding-wise) or have a crappy cdrom drive that can't do quality DAE. Otherwise, you're choosing like 24kbps bitrate on the encode. Uh, duh?

fwiw, my rip/encoder combo = AudioGrabber/AudioActive Production Studio.

[johnqp]

Here's a question:
Can you take an MP3 at 44Kbs and bump it up to say 128Kbs?
I think that would require an algorithm to examine the change in steps between individual bit samples and then make an educated guess as to what should fill the space between bits.
Anyone know of such a program that can do that?

[OuTpaTienT]

Why would you want to do that?

[AMD kicks]

I just got a DVDrom with mp3 rip capability. My guess is it will be better sounding than ripping with my 32X cdrom.

[Hydro]

The difference between a 160kbps mp3 and a 192kbps or anything higher [including your *deleted* 256kbps mp3s] CAN NOT be heard by the naked ear.
i think the only difference is: computer stereo vs. home stereo..

but then again, im only the webmaster of one of the most famous RAP http mp3 sites http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
www.dabassment2k.com (http://www.dabassment2k.com)
Hydro

*edited for language*-Mntsnow

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 12-22-2000).]

[struggles]

win 98, do you know how to complete sentences? Your posts seldom make any sense.

[OuTpaTienT]

Hydro, this one's very simple: you are wrong.

Listen to 2 mp3s and compare sound quality, with one of them being 160kbps and the other being 256kbps or better yet, 320kbps. You WILL hear a difference.

It may be that your type of music lends itself well to the mp3 format and therefore doesn't lose much quality when compressed. But most music with a full dynamic range of complex layered rhythms will suffer a great deal (noticable audibly) from anything less than 192kbps. Technically, it will even suffer loss at 320kbps but it probably not be noticable.

[Warthog]

I used to think that, hydro, but then I created a specific mp3 in 190kbps (vs. 96). I listened to the same section of the song in each format and quickly found the difference. Instruments were more pronounced and everything was MUCH clearer. Rap does not have a very wide range of instruments.

Warthog

[AMD kicks]

The main difference to me between 160kbps mp3s and 256/320 kbps mp3s are mostly bass information. 160 always sound pretty smooth like 256/320 yet its very light sounding because it lacks alot of the bass extension of higher bit rates. Music by Celine Dion for example, usually sounds just fine at 160 because her voice and music are usually absent of much bass emphasis. I would say 160 is the bare minimum though because 128 just sounds to rashy. With 160 you start to get alot of the smoothness of the higher bits rates but you still lose alot of bass.