Why do MP3s' sound so bad?

Richard Ellis · 12th September 2007, 05:30 PM

Ok...before ya all bash me for not knowing some background we just recently started burning our own cds from MP3 files.
Now, I know of Cd parameters, sample rates, compression, expansion & such but these **** Mp3s sound awful...& what is that funny warbling sound on low volume?
Is there a sampling rate defieciency? A limiting factor? Some poor allocations of frequencies? Whats' up? Can these processes be compensated for?
Do I have to return to "store-bought" CDs to retain fidelity?
______________________________________Rick........

macboy · 12th September 2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Ellis
Ok...before ya all bash me for not knowing some background we just recently started burning our own cds from MP3 files.
Now, I know of Cd parameters, sample rates, compression, expansion & such but these **** Mp3s sound awful...& what is that funny warbling sound on low volume?
Is there a sampling rate defieciency? A limiting factor? Some poor allocations of frequencies? Whats' up? Can these processes be compensated for?
Do I have to return to "store-bought" CDs to retain fidelity?

Yes, you do. Better yet, try SACD or DVD-Audio. You'll be blown away.

The only use for MP3 is listening on a portable through cruddy earbuds in a noisy environment.

preiter · 12th September 2007, 06:07 PM

What bitrates are we talking about here?

People love to bash on MP3, but I think they sound OK if you keep the bit rates above 256 Kbps. Lossless is better, but MP3s have their place where disk space or bandwidth is an issue.

And if you still find them unacceptable at higher bitrates, you can use a non-lossy format like FLAC or WMA Lossless. No reason to go back to CDs.

If you are downloading these MP3s, then chances are they do suck. Most of the stuff that people post on torrent sites are ripped at 192Kbps or (gak) 128Kbps.

quickshift · 12th September 2007, 06:54 PM

This is a sensible ripper http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/

You can use FLAC with it too.

Geek · 13th September 2007, 12:00 AM

Try Vorbis .ogg format or FLAC and skip the MP3 B.S.

Nordic · 13th September 2007, 08:01 AM

The loudness war....

ak_47_boy · 13th September 2007, 09:26 PM

MP3 320 isn't bad but i will always go flac.

owdi · 14th September 2007, 05:34 AM

mp3's can do a good job with music that does not contain lots of high frequency detail. Doing blind tests I could not pick out the difference between a 192kbps and 224kbps mp3s, with most modern pop music.

The standard mp3 bitrate seems to be 128kbps, which sucks for any kind of critical listening.

Dan

Geek · 14th September 2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by owdi
mp3's can do a good job with music that does not contain lots of high frequency detail. Doing blind tests I could not pick out the difference between a 192kbps and 224kbps mp3s, with most modern pop music.

Keywords: modern pop music.

I think Rap and Hip-Hop fit into that too.... nothing much above 300Hz :-/

Quote:

[B]
The standard mp3 bitrate seems to be 128kbps, which sucks for any kind of critical listening. [B]

Yes, it does. We call those 128K posts "flamebait" on the Jazz and Classical mp3 groups

AndrewT · 14th September 2007, 07:15 AM

Lossy compression will always lose data.
Digital sampling and particularly 16bit, 44ks/S =CD has already approximated the analogue signal.
The reconstituted digital signal does not match the original.
It is bound to be different. It will sound different.

What is surprising is that we have the facility and technology to record at 22 to 24bit, 192ks/S and yet the industry has not yet released an MPx compressed version starting from that digital signal. It would compress down to a similar data rate as CD but should exceed the sound quality of CD.
Now, if we were being offered that as retail downloads for our music source.

Why do we pay for compressed music @ a higher price per track than the uncompressed music off the CD?
Surely if it is compressed by half then pay half the rate.
Compress it to 8% and we should pay 8% of the track rate.
That way we pay for what we get.

Lossless compression can just about achieve 50% compression but the retail price would be 100% due to the ability of the software to reconstitute the original digital signal.

The closest we have come to compressed high data rate music is on DVD video. But they need to fit in the video and thus must choose a lower data rate for the audio. We are just a step away.

As for the low level warble: no idea.

12th September 2007, 05:30 PM	#1
Richard Ellis diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Mar del Plata, a BIG seasonal getaway city, can see the Ocean from our residence.	Why do MP3s' sound so bad? Ok...before ya all bash me for not knowing some background we just recently started burning our own cds from MP3 files. Now, I know of Cd parameters, sample rates, compression, expansion & such but these **** Mp3s sound awful...& what is that funny warbling sound on low volume? Is there a sampling rate defieciency? A limiting factor? Some poor allocations of frequencies? Whats' up? Can these processes be compensated for? Do I have to return to "store-bought" CDs to retain fidelity? ______________________________________Rick........

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
does USB DAC process MP3s too?	tilroh	Digital Source	12	11th June 2008 12:25 PM
is it safe to play mp3s on the PC through a vintage amp?	pezza89	Everything Else	5	23rd September 2007 06:04 PM
Reason to convert MP3s to WAV?	PeteMcK	Everything Else	5	13th November 2006 06:20 AM
High Quality MP3s - an attempt	Mikett	Digital Source	9	14th August 2005 10:25 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

12th September 2007, 06:07 PM	#3
preiter diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2006	What bitrates are we talking about here? People love to bash on MP3, but I think they sound OK if you keep the bit rates above 256 Kbps. Lossless is better, but MP3s have their place where disk space or bandwidth is an issue. And if you still find them unacceptable at higher bitrates, you can use a non-lossy format like FLAC or WMA Lossless. No reason to go back to CDs. If you are downloading these MP3s, then chances are they do suck. Most of the stuff that people post on torrent sites are ripped at 192Kbps or (gak) 128Kbps.

12th September 2007, 06:54 PM	#4
quickshift diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: West London	This is a sensible ripper http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/ You can use FLAC with it too.

13th September 2007, 12:00 AM	#5
Geek diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2004	Try Vorbis .ogg format or FLAC and skip the MP3 B.S.

13th September 2007, 08:01 AM	#6
Nordic diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2005	The loudness war....

13th September 2007, 09:26 PM	#7
ak_47_boy diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006	MP3 320 isn't bad but i will always go flac.

14th September 2007, 05:34 AM	#8
owdi diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Bellevue, WA	mp3's can do a good job with music that does not contain lots of high frequency detail. Doing blind tests I could not pick out the difference between a 192kbps and 224kbps mp3s, with most modern pop music. The standard mp3 bitrate seems to be 128kbps, which sucks for any kind of critical listening. Dan

14th September 2007, 07:15 AM	#10
AndrewT diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scottish Borders	Lossy compression will always lose data. Digital sampling and particularly 16bit, 44ks/S =CD has already approximated the analogue signal. The reconstituted digital signal does not match the original. It is bound to be different. It will sound different. What is surprising is that we have the facility and technology to record at 22 to 24bit, 192ks/S and yet the industry has not yet released an MPx compressed version starting from that digital signal. It would compress down to a similar data rate as CD but should exceed the sound quality of CD. Now, if we were being offered that as retail downloads for our music source. Why do we pay for compressed music @ a higher price per track than the uncompressed music off the CD? Surely if it is compressed by half then pay half the rate. Compress it to 8% and we should pay 8% of the track rate. That way we pay for what we get. Lossless compression can just about achieve 50% compression but the retail price would be 100% due to the ability of the software to reconstitute the original digital signal. The closest we have come to compressed high data rate music is on DVD video. But they need to fit in the video and thus must choose a lower data rate for the audio. We are just a step away. As for the low level warble: no idea.