I think the author is mistaking the effects of lossy (mp3) encoding with hypercompression (the Loudness Wars - volume level compression and actual clipping, vs. psychoacoustic data reduction). They both contribute to bad sound, but hypercompression seems to be the worse culprit in the last decade or so. The mention of a Michael Jackson track from CD suggests to me it's from an older CD mastered earlier in the increasingly loud hypercompression curve of the last two decades. Having 24-bit 96ksps recordings of recently mastered pop recordings won't be much of an improvement over mp3's.
Maybe, they are the same thing, because they are the product of the same time. It's a matter of culture and the techy side which appeals to us is of limited relevance to others.
Of course, talking about partying and playing loud puts the system under stress and we are part of it and as 'cultural beings' we may find that something's wrong and it's not what it should or it used to be.
In music reproduction, what we hear is the processment so the machines should give the natural touch to meet our senses. Everything that differs from natural sound brings something unreal that our senses regret firmly.
If that happens 1/10th of a microsecond each time or it is spread all over the
'song' it doesn't matter, we still find that there is something wrong. Then we can put our 'defence' mode on or ignore it....
Of course, talking about partying and playing loud puts the system under stress and we are part of it and as 'cultural beings' we may find that something's wrong and it's not what it should or it used to be.
In music reproduction, what we hear is the processment so the machines should give the natural touch to meet our senses. Everything that differs from natural sound brings something unreal that our senses regret firmly.
If that happens 1/10th of a microsecond each time or it is spread all over the
'song' it doesn't matter, we still find that there is something wrong. Then we can put our 'defence' mode on or ignore it....
Why MP3 should start to not be so popular? We all have already know that MP3 has a limitation soundwise, and we do have had options. I think what we need to stop MP3 popularity is a low cost universal player for better format (whatever it is). Once this player is available, everyone will move.
Anything other than a 128k mp3 will take more space (so fewer songs can be stored on your widget), and most people can't hear the difference. Most people see FLAC and high bitrate stuff as worse, not better.
I've heard that half the farmers in China have iPhones, and they probably drink Coca-Cola. Good marketing trumps open source and common sense every time.
Unlikely.
I suspect open source wasn't the best term and 'not crippled by DRM' is closer to the intent.
+1
here's my take on the mp3 issue.
first, I'll say it loud and clear: it's a good thing. I'll explain while you recover from the shock
first, psychoacoustic compression was developed for telecom use. MPEG-1 layer 3 (mp3) was the first to produce more than acceptable results at high compression ratios. so you have channel bandwidth "B" and more stations will fit. I'm sorry, but do audiophiles often use radio as the primary source of high quality sound?
second, I'd find it entertaining to have some nay-sayers ABX low bitrate mp3's.
and I conjecture: few of the nay-sayers actually ever ABX-ed mp3's.
I read about people that claim to hear differences between uncompressed RedBook and 320kbps mp3's on PC speakers. to me, that's a reminder about the amount of BS floating online. it takes way more than an entry level system to hear the differences, that is if you ever hear them.
IMO, the reputation of the mp3 may be related to the early encoders that were horrendous by all standards. I remember using a rather popular one in the early days (can't remember which) and the bass guitar sounded like a synth. one thing few people actually seem to realize is that the ISO standard (mp3 is an ISO standard) only specifies the format of the datastream, that is how you decode it. there's theoretically an infinite number of different mp3 streams that can be generated from the same PCM data and the ISO standard says nothing about how you compress. and you simply can't reverse the process, it's not a "bijection" if you will.
in the early days the only good compressor was the Fraunhoffer one, but it wasn't free. figures, since it is said that they spent ~1M to develop the thing.
luckily, LAME closed the gap.
one other thing I find ridiculous is the typical whining I often read: "oh, people have been brainwashed into not caring about good sound and look where that lead us". what? what did they do? first, most people couldn't care less about good sound and part of the reason is that good sound is expensive to have. and it's not the only reason, I bet many wouldn't bother even if they afforded it. second, even if they were brainwashed into the bad sound thing, how does that hurt audiophiles? are CDs becoming obsolete and I missed it? is hdtracks out of business? who/what forces one not to buy CDs, SACDs, hires files?
in case anyone brings the "mixed and mastered for iPods" argument... I'm not a sound engineer, but AFAIK that is a myth, no-one actually mixes/masters music so that it sounds better on iPod phones. TBH, I'd take a 128kbps encoded mp3 of a good recording any day instead of uncompressed versions of the thin-sounding recordings of the 60s-70s.
one bad thing about mp3's is that you have no way of knowing if they were compressed with a good encoder that was correctly configured. some people incorrectly configure the encoders without understanding the options, thinking that "more is more". and bad encoders may still be around.
no, I'm not saying that mp3 is the way to go. it is altering the signal and that departs us from high fidelity. I don't use mp3s for serious listening, there's no point. but the problem is nowehere as bad as some try to make it. if having hours of music on a lighter-sized gizmo for jogging or whatever is a bad thing, well, don't use it, end of story.
some even think that lossless compression is not actually lossless. some claim to be able to tell CD ripping software by ear, although they produce bit-identical files.
nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to audio but some people need to be slapped back to reality from some to time.
Last edited:
People don't even invest in some headphones better than the 3$ ones that came with the player, how can you expect them to appreciate FLAC? Well, marketting gimmick can get it.
All the moral outrage about MP3s being good enough is wasted emotional energy. Storage and bandwidth costs per megabyte continue to collapse dramatically. I spend a nightly hour or two watching hi-def podcasts at rates easily comfortable handling FLAC without running into data caps. Even phones can carry uncompressed libraries that would have been the pride of audiophile homes in vinyl's heyday.
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.
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'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.
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.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.