Ben + Dave:
Have you done the following?:
Rip a cd with Exact Audio Copy, encode it with lame at 320 kbps, burn it on a decent burner and have someone else switch between original and copy (on your own system) and you having to name which is which.
..or was it more like this?:
Visit a friend who downloads mp3's from the internet which are ripped with a non-lame encoder at 128 kbps and hear it play throught the analog output of a soundcard on their computer-speakers in a noisy room, caused by a noisy computer?
Have you done the following?:
Rip a cd with Exact Audio Copy, encode it with lame at 320 kbps, burn it on a decent burner and have someone else switch between original and copy (on your own system) and you having to name which is which.
..or was it more like this?:
Visit a friend who downloads mp3's from the internet which are ripped with a non-lame encoder at 128 kbps and hear it play throught the analog output of a soundcard on their computer-speakers in a noisy room, caused by a noisy computer?
Nielsio,
do you mean that an MP3 burnt this way is difficult to distingtuish from the original on a decent system?
Until now I've not listened to MP3 that much as most of them seem to be seriously flawed, at least what I've heard so far.
Does it also work if you use the ripped file from the harddisk through an external decent soundcard (M-audio or equivalent) ?
do you mean that an MP3 burnt this way is difficult to distingtuish from the original on a decent system?
Until now I've not listened to MP3 that much as most of them seem to be seriously flawed, at least what I've heard so far.
Does it also work if you use the ripped file from the harddisk through an external decent soundcard (M-audio or equivalent) ?
Nielsio said:
I've heard it done... and could tell them apart. The loss inherent on CD can be barely tolerable at times... i don't use them for much more than background music. Serious listening takes vinyl (or a much better CD player than i've been able to afford).
dave
planet10/5000+ LPs, 50 CDs
That's quite a big statement. Are you sure it was a good copy (eac, lame, 320)?
It seems your dislike of CD's is extended onto mp3. Why bother going in the Digital forum if you never seriously use it?
I must admit: my experiences with vinyl are all pleasant. The big issue is it's ease of use / wearing out / distribute-ability (all intertwined); this is why I'm trying to get the most out of digital music (so far, so good).
Also remember that audio quality is not all the same to all people. For instance, my old roommate swore (and he was very religious) that there was no audible difference between 192 and 128 kbps mp3s... Now I know most of you will agree that there is a large difference between 192 and 320 so you're probably in agreement with me. However, I did an A/B test with this guy and he really couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 192 kbps. I'd say he's lucky if anything, because unlike most of us, he can listen to a 'boom box' and think its high quality.
I have a lot of trouble listening to < 192kbps mp3s, and even a lot of 192 aren't that great.
Pete
I have a lot of trouble listening to < 192kbps mp3s, and even a lot of 192 aren't that great.
Pete
Are you all listening to the digital out on your card? I find no sound played through my analogue out is very high quality, and I've not had the chance to hear it another way yet. This makes talk of one encoder vs another less worthwhile (for ppl using analogue out). What do ppl think of the quality attainable using a seperate hi-fi DAC?
BTW I do much prefer the higher bitrate encoding. Two geeky friends made me listen to a top bitrate OG (or whatever it is) vs. 320kb MP3, and I could pick the OG as the more pleasant one. I surprised myself, because at these high bitrates I guessed there'd be little to choose between one type and another. This makes it less surprising 128k MP3 sounds so dire... Even in the background the dullness of the sound can bore me. But it's so much worse on some music, and at the frequency 'extremes'.
I don't see Planet10s point really, if there is one. Who uses MP3 for anything but convenience, and in situations where sound quality is unimportant? I wouldn't be able to listen to it, without doing something else, for very long - the sound is just too muffled and distorted. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. The one thing I'll give it is that it doesn't seem to give CD-harshness as much as typical CD players do.
All MP3 is great for is piracy, which I don't really condone
(except maybe for trying things out, before buying if they're good)
Oh, and for in cars, and streaming radio stations... Anyone else heard smoothjazz.com? (How bloated does the bass sound, and why???)
On the move? No way, those players sound crap, much worse than a soundcard! Can't beat a personal CD machine and some big 'phones - my Sony discman and beyerdynamic cans sounds more neutral and gets more detail than most/any hi-fi setups I've heard! MP3 can't achieve this incredible illusion.
My 2p worth, which is probably not even worth that, it's all been said before I'm sure....
-Simon
BTW I do much prefer the higher bitrate encoding. Two geeky friends made me listen to a top bitrate OG (or whatever it is) vs. 320kb MP3, and I could pick the OG as the more pleasant one. I surprised myself, because at these high bitrates I guessed there'd be little to choose between one type and another. This makes it less surprising 128k MP3 sounds so dire... Even in the background the dullness of the sound can bore me. But it's so much worse on some music, and at the frequency 'extremes'.
I don't see Planet10s point really, if there is one. Who uses MP3 for anything but convenience, and in situations where sound quality is unimportant? I wouldn't be able to listen to it, without doing something else, for very long - the sound is just too muffled and distorted. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. The one thing I'll give it is that it doesn't seem to give CD-harshness as much as typical CD players do.
All MP3 is great for is piracy, which I don't really condone
(except maybe for trying things out, before buying if they're good)
Oh, and for in cars, and streaming radio stations... Anyone else heard smoothjazz.com? (How bloated does the bass sound, and why???)
On the move? No way, those players sound crap, much worse than a soundcard! Can't beat a personal CD machine and some big 'phones - my Sony discman and beyerdynamic cans sounds more neutral and gets more detail than most/any hi-fi setups I've heard! MP3 can't achieve this incredible illusion.
My 2p worth, which is probably not even worth that, it's all been said before I'm sure....
-Simon
MP3 on most 'modern' music sounds better than the original CDs, IMO. At least it softens some of the highs that are put in by those smartypants engineers.
On a good recording however, it just destroys most of the music. I guess it also depends on the capabilities of the speaker system computer, in 90% of the cases that is the real limiting factor for audio quality anyway, as on a $20 Speaker system a Cd and a 96 kbps MP3 will sound the same. Well, not really the same, but close enough.
MP3 was devised for two reasons: Computer jingles and collaborative music. It also has its place in cars as the levels of ambient noise are high. Also when just playing in the background unattended, such as a party at your home - can't keep changing CDs every ten minutes, just put on the PC and let it run through the hard disk.
Oh, yeah, and Napster and ***** and that kind of stuff. 99% of the music on there is so badly ripped that you delete it from your hard disk anyway. not worth the bandwidth.
On a good recording however, it just destroys most of the music. I guess it also depends on the capabilities of the speaker system computer, in 90% of the cases that is the real limiting factor for audio quality anyway, as on a $20 Speaker system a Cd and a 96 kbps MP3 will sound the same. Well, not really the same, but close enough.
MP3 was devised for two reasons: Computer jingles and collaborative music. It also has its place in cars as the levels of ambient noise are high. Also when just playing in the background unattended, such as a party at your home - can't keep changing CDs every ten minutes, just put on the PC and let it run through the hard disk.
Oh, yeah, and Napster and ***** and that kind of stuff. 99% of the music on there is so badly ripped that you delete it from your hard disk anyway. not worth the bandwidth.
Hi!
Normally I don't participate in this kind of "mp3 is not HiFi"-discussions any more (as both sides won't be convinced of the other), but I just had to post some thoughts...
If with 'modern' you mean mass-compatible chart music, I guess you are right (Techno and its likes, RnB, HipHop, Pop, NuMetal ...)
But some other stuff is way ahead of old recording techniques used, if you have able technicians and producers behind the mikes...
You won't believe how many high end hifi enthusiasts have their computers hooked up to a 2.1 or 5.1 speaker kit, from between 30 - 300 $... Let alone "normal", non hifi guys...
At least connect it to all your GCs, Alephs, P3As, with your open baffles, Duettas as speakers... And then tell about sound quality...
Yeah, that's quite so. But using MP3 as primary audio source day in day out can also change your listening behaviour in that way that you simply can't stand to listen to "normal" CDs (or LPs) any more... It is the effect Robby Williams described in an interview done in Germany as that he was "rediscovering music" through MP3 (he aquired an Apple iPod). Before using MP3s he said that he wasn't listening to music any longer...
I myself simply can't stand to listen to more than two or three tracks of one band after another. Using MP3s brought me to the point where all the stuff I listen to has to be "compilated", up to the point of leaving the room while doing a group holiday when somebody puts on a favourite record of his by one artist...
So for me it is just that I have to use MP3s, since I don't want to spend all my days just by burning compilations of my CDs (400+)...
Yes, absolutely right. I only used doenloaded stuff for evaluation or for hard-to-get music.
Otherwise I have to say (being a computer geek - its what I do for a living) that using EAC (CDParanoia is just as good), Lame with 320 kbps is too uneconomical for me, I use 196 kbps ABR, which uses parts which are "easy" to encode to save bitrate for more complex parts... And mass blind listening tests done by Hydrogenaudio have proven that for example "-alt-preset-insane" is the best encoding for LAME, which also uses VBR...
Bye,
Arndt
Normally I don't participate in this kind of "mp3 is not HiFi"-discussions any more (as both sides won't be convinced of the other), but I just had to post some thoughts...
sangram said:
If with 'modern' you mean mass-compatible chart music, I guess you are right (Techno and its likes, RnB, HipHop, Pop,
NuMetal ...)But some other stuff is way ahead of old recording techniques used, if you have able technicians and producers behind the mikes...
You won't believe how many high end hifi enthusiasts have their computers hooked up to a 2.1 or 5.1 speaker kit, from between 30 - 300 $... Let alone "normal", non hifi guys...
At least connect it to all your GCs, Alephs, P3As, with your open baffles, Duettas as speakers... And then tell about sound quality...
Yeah, that's quite so. But using MP3 as primary audio source day in day out can also change your listening behaviour in that way that you simply can't stand to listen to "normal" CDs (or LPs) any more... It is the effect Robby Williams described in an interview done in Germany as that he was "rediscovering music" through MP3 (he aquired an Apple iPod). Before using MP3s he said that he wasn't listening to music any longer...
I myself simply can't stand to listen to more than two or three tracks of one band after another. Using MP3s brought me to the point where all the stuff I listen to has to be "compilated", up to the point of leaving the room while doing a group holiday when somebody puts on a favourite record of his by one artist...
So for me it is just that I have to use MP3s, since I don't want to spend all my days just by burning compilations of my CDs (400+)...
Yes, absolutely right. I only used doenloaded stuff for evaluation or for hard-to-get music.
Otherwise I have to say (being a computer geek - its what I do for a living) that using EAC (CDParanoia is just as good), Lame with 320 kbps is too uneconomical for me, I use 196 kbps ABR, which uses parts which are "easy" to encode to save bitrate for more complex parts... And mass blind listening tests done by Hydrogenaudio have proven that for example "-alt-preset-insane" is the best encoding for LAME, which also uses VBR...
Bye,
Arndt
-alt-preset-insane is constant
There are some Wikis on Hydrogenaudio also.
Recommended settings are here:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/RecommendedLAME
There are some Wikis on Hydrogenaudio also.
Recommended settings are here:
http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/hydrogenaudio/RecommendedLAME
Hi,
planet10
Nielsio,
btw, I think the most important part in this little system is the headphones, which sound pleasant whatever the source. Sadly I just don't like listening through 'phones
maczrool,
sangram,
(some is niiice!)
Cradle22,
Yikes, I'm quoting everyone now!
-Simon
planet10
Yes, lol. Sorry, but it wasn't clear to me
Nielsio,
I'm sure that would help hear the potential, but I can easily hear its limitations through my better hi-if speakers. ...I thought you had no time for my comments, hehe.
btw, I think the most important part in this little system is the headphones, which sound pleasant whatever the source. Sadly I just don't like listening through 'phones maczrool,
Yeh, I suspected some kind of compression. Recently I've been trying to identify the sonic characteristics of compression (of dynamics). I think one tell-tale sign is bass guitars being easy to follow, and being able to hear every note, and then all notes sound too similar to one another. Obviously, there is then the small-scale of the music. Great for little radios tho.
sangram,
Thats a bold statement, which I totally agree with. I think some of this music is also much nicer on the ear on low-budget separates systems - that is a good compromise. The ability of a revealing system to hear the varying amounts of distortion and distortions between various recordings is staggering. I only realise after upgrading things so much! Some music is unlistenable
(some is niiice!)Cradle22,
It is through my good system the distortions are most easily heard (dullness, lack of clarity, detail and resolution, muddy bass etc.)
Quite, and burnt CDs (not that I have many) always seem to sound thin and harsh anyway.
Yikes, I'm quoting everyone now!
-Simon
SimontY said:
I have heard this before...and my understanding from a technical standpoint is that a burnt copy is bit for bit. Otherwise when a copy is made of a software cd the program wouldnt work. Granted the sound quality will change if the tracks are ripped...played with by the computer and so on. Any thoughts out there on how to make complimations of cds without degrading sound quality...does it degrade sound quality? hmmmm wish i had the time and the euipment to test this with.
Another thought that i had concerns the quality of the CD drive doing the ripping. Obviously a cheaper drive is going to have more errors...but the sound quality sound be the same as a $15,000 setup since its digital and just either 1 or 0...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.