Looks like MP3s might be starting to not be so popular - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th June 2013, 08:07 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Skokie Il
I didn't measure the noises. They are almost as loud as the program material on some mp3 files. Granted they were most likely because someone didn't burn the file properly. I have heard the same thing on many mp3 recordings.

The noises are like whistles, echos, and pops. On some of the "better ones" it is faint but painfully obvious to me.

I have heard some mp3 files that did not exhibit these characteristics. They sounded quite acceptable to me.

I've never owned an mp3 player and most likely never will. Even some CDs sound awful to me, but it's the same reason that LPs sound bad- it's in the mix.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 10:54 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: At the output stage
Send a message via Yahoo to mr_push_pull
well, looks like that's what I described in a post above: you can never know what encoder was used, some used to be crappy and I'm talking from direct experience. but I really doubt the same would happen with LAME or another good encoder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdf View Post
On the other side of the delivery chain, MP3s can't be directly edited, forcing content providers to perform format conversions and pay pointless codec licensing fees. Content stored in compressed format limits generational uses. Everywhere in my industry it's being removed for the sake of fidelity and efficiency.
Like horses, compressed audio will survive in niche applications. Everyone else will take the highway.
I don't view it like that at all. perceptual coding is a good thing, be it for video or audio use, if we're viewing it in the context of broadcast. not using perceptual coding for serious music listening is another, unrelated thing.
everyone seems to forget that one minute of uncompressed HD video would need ~6G of space (700G for a 2-hour movie) and as of 2013 we don't have infinite storage space/bandwidth for free.
__________________
we all love a good ol' stereotype until it's against us

Last edited by mr_push_pull; 22nd June 2013 at 11:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 03:04 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie D View Post
I've heard some mp3 files that sounded pretty good on the mid-fi sound system I have hooked up to my computer. I've never heard an mp3 file that sounded even close to good on my real sound system.

The vast majority of mp3 files sound absolutly awful to me. First, I find excessive compression quite objectionable; it is a personal prejudice of mine. Second, the distortion on many mp3s is only 20 dB below
the signal; some are only 7 to 10 dB below the signal! How this sounds "good" to anybody is something I don't understand.

My nephews always claim that "mp3 is perfect." To prove it they played their ipod (how awful those contraptions are) through my hi fi system and gloated. Then I took out a CD of the same track and played it. The difference should have been apparent to a doorknob, but they interpreted the reduced compression (still way too much for me of course) and lack of snaps, ringing, wierd echos, and static as inferior!

The first "hi-fi" I listened to as a kid was a big old tube console. For all its warts, the distortion it produced did not clash with the music like mp3 distortion does. I always find myself totally distracted by the awful noises produced by mp3 that are often just a few dB below the program material.
You confuse data compression with dynamic range compression.

Complexity of actual data limits how far it can be packed. Yes, many mp3's are ghastly, others are indistinguishable by ear.

It is very similar to image compression. jpeg when pushed, looks like crap.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 03:54 PM   #24
rdf is offline rdf  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
rdf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: big smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_push_pull View Post
...as of 2013 we don't have infinite storage space/bandwidth for free.
That's the point. Storage per dollar is exploding. Every old timer has stories of paying $1500/gigabyte. Fibre is already the transport of choice for national broadcasters and is appearing in the home, the most recent tests we did on a wireless Internet modem exceeded 30 meg bidirectional speeds. Transport protocols limited to compressed speeds - satellite for example - will remain but become increasingly niche.
With 4K coming on line the pressure to up the game will really start. 2013 is irrelevant.
__________________
Ears aren't microphones.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 03:59 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: At the output stage
Send a message via Yahoo to mr_push_pull
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
You confuse data compression with dynamic range compression.

Complexity of actual data limits how far it can be packed. Yes, many mp3's are ghastly, others are indistinguishable by ear.

It is very similar to image compression. jpeg when pushed, looks like crap.
actually, with MP3 there's the psychoacoustic model that comes into play. AFAIK, JPEG simply applies a similar algorithm (Huffman coding of the DCT-transformed data) but w/o any perceptual processing/analysis (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).
with MP3 I believe it's the psychoacoustic model and the implementation that counts the most.
__________________
we all love a good ol' stereotype until it's against us
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 04:01 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
KatieandDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
DAB is similar. Put it through a decent Hi-Fi and the difference between DAB and FM is truly amazing. I only use MP3 to ascertain if I like a particular recording (just for taste purposes). I then always buy the CD. If we had SACD in the UK, I would probably err for that too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2013, 04:33 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
ByronInPortland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Portland, Oregon
I appreciate the argument that uncompressed recordings are still available for those who want them, so the ubiquity of MP3's doesn't do us any harm. However, it would be nice if I could enjoy the convenience that listeners of MP3's enjoy. HD tracks is great, but they really only offer a small fraction of what is available on MP3. As several posters have pointed out, memory of portable devices has increased enough that we could all easily move to a less compressed format. If this happened, I wouldn't have to get all of my music on CD. Sadly, as other posters have pointed out, there seems to not be enough demand for better sound to cause this to happen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2013, 04:01 AM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Skokie Il
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
You confuse data compression with dynamic range compression.

Complexity of actual data limits how far it can be packed. Yes, many mp3's are ghastly, others are indistinguishable by ear.

It is very similar to image compression. jpeg when pushed, looks like crap.
You know I have a lot to learn about this stuff. I'm an analog guy. If I could control digital data as precisely as I do my analog stuff, I'd happily roll my own. But I have a long way to go in this arena.

I do certainly understand your JPEG analogy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2013, 04:03 AM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Skokie Il
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_push_pull View Post
actually, with MP3 there's the psychoacoustic model that comes into play. AFAIK, JPEG simply applies a similar algorithm (Huffman coding of the DCT-transformed data) but w/o any perceptual processing/analysis (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).
with MP3 I believe it's the psychoacoustic model and the implementation that counts the most.

Interesting. I need to know more about this.

I do certainly understand psychoacoustics in an old school way.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2013, 04:07 AM   #30
benb is offline benb  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Here's some good lessons in controlling digital data: The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bit Perfect MP3s? Pano PC Based 7 6th December 2011 02:29 AM
Why do MP3s' sound so bad? Richard Ellis Everything Else 19 24th September 2007 07:20 AM
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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2