It has begun to intrest me the loss of quality when a CD track is turned into MP3 or downloaded on P2P software with a quality of 128k/sec what the loss of quality and what is lost. I know the basics of MP3 from .howstuffworks.com . Is the loss of quality diffrent say if you are listening to it on a personal stereo compared to a soundsystem.
MP3
MP3 converted to 128k/s gives something like 12:1 compression (or loss), and is like pictures in .jpg a lossy compression.
Wich means that parts of the information are removed, and cannot be restored.
On boom-boxes or pc's, most people hardly notices, but as soon as you try on a better stereo, you will notice the low quality...
Arne K
MP3 converted to 128k/s gives something like 12:1 compression (or loss), and is like pictures in .jpg a lossy compression.
Wich means that parts of the information are removed, and cannot be restored.
On boom-boxes or pc's, most people hardly notices, but as soon as you try on a better stereo, you will notice the low quality...
Arne K
I have noticed that the highs suffer the most degradation when you rip them into an mp3. If what ever they are played out of has a decent tweeter you will notice a difference.
Andrew
Andrew
The harder compressed, MP3 removes much of the ambience and atmosphere in the music. There are also a big difference between different enchoders. I think LAME and BLADE is the two best. Audio Catalyst the worst, wich destroyed the sound totaly.
Played thrugh a good system the difference between the original CD and MP3 are very clear. I think 192kb/s is 'minimum' for good quality.
The best way to find out is by experimenting. Try different enchoders at different bitrates and try to compare the sound. If you own a good system you will notice the differnce, if you got PC speakers, I think not... 🙄
Played thrugh a good system the difference between the original CD and MP3 are very clear. I think 192kb/s is 'minimum' for good quality.
The best way to find out is by experimenting. Try different enchoders at different bitrates and try to compare the sound. If you own a good system you will notice the differnce, if you got PC speakers, I think not... 🙄
Yeah, MP3s are pretty crappy... I can usually get away with it by adjusting the tone controls a bit. 🙂 The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality, if KaZaA 😉 comes up with two bitrates, take the higher..
Tim
Tim
MP3 = crap? frankly, that's BS. not only IMO, but also as the conclusion of a couple of professionally done listening tests and technical analyses i know of. people who say MP3 is crap usually refer to the crap they download with kazaa instead of doing decent testing or analysing (not all MP3s one can find with kazaa are crap!).
LAME v3.9x is by far the best encoder. don't use anything else. other encoders may produce crap.
128 kbps: not enough in many cases.
160 kbps: very hard to tell what's original and what's MP3, even on good headphones.
192 kbps: should be sufficient (=CD quality) for almost every music and almost every stereo. i don't know anyone who is able to tell what's 192 kbps and what's 256 kbps, even with difficult to compress audio material.
regards
peter
LAME v3.9x is by far the best encoder. don't use anything else. other encoders may produce crap.
128 kbps: not enough in many cases.
160 kbps: very hard to tell what's original and what's MP3, even on good headphones.
192 kbps: should be sufficient (=CD quality) for almost every music and almost every stereo. i don't know anyone who is able to tell what's 192 kbps and what's 256 kbps, even with difficult to compress audio material.
regards
peter
Well, for a start, i don't have good headphones, I have good speakers... SECOND!!! using a good quality CD player, not one of those cheap ones will yeild better results than a 192kb MP3... and.. 192 is by NO stretch CD quality.. 🙄
"192 is by NO stretch CD quality.. "
hi skinnyboy,
as i said, i'm referring to decent listening tests and technical analyses.
my personal experience is that with most speakers (and i'm not talking of 300$ mini boxes), one can't tell the difference.
over a year ago, the webmaster of one of the biggest german DIY audio boards (who is a passionate gambler and loves betting) started the following "contest":
-each "contestant" yould choose a five music tracks from his own CDs
-the webmaster then burned the tracks on CDR, each encoded with different bitrates (LAME 128, 192, 320) AND as an 1:1 copy, with the different qualities being in mixed up order
-the contestant now had to tell which tracks were MP3 and which were original (and which MP3 were 128, 192 and 320)
-anyone who could tell which track is which quality was granted EUR 10.000 (=US$ 10.000).
the contest is over now. most contestants were able to recognize the 128 kbps MP3 (which is easy), but no one was able to fully recognize the quality order of the five tracks (and among the contestants, there were not only hobbyists, but also musicians, audio pro's, engineers and even gold ears who claimed before that even 320 kbps MP3s are worthless crap that one can't listen to even on a PC and who had to learn that they can't even tell what's original and what's MP3).
nuff said, i think.
regards
peter
hi skinnyboy,
as i said, i'm referring to decent listening tests and technical analyses.
my personal experience is that with most speakers (and i'm not talking of 300$ mini boxes), one can't tell the difference.
over a year ago, the webmaster of one of the biggest german DIY audio boards (who is a passionate gambler and loves betting) started the following "contest":
-each "contestant" yould choose a five music tracks from his own CDs
-the webmaster then burned the tracks on CDR, each encoded with different bitrates (LAME 128, 192, 320) AND as an 1:1 copy, with the different qualities being in mixed up order
-the contestant now had to tell which tracks were MP3 and which were original (and which MP3 were 128, 192 and 320)
-anyone who could tell which track is which quality was granted EUR 10.000 (=US$ 10.000).
the contest is over now. most contestants were able to recognize the 128 kbps MP3 (which is easy), but no one was able to fully recognize the quality order of the five tracks (and among the contestants, there were not only hobbyists, but also musicians, audio pro's, engineers and even gold ears who claimed before that even 320 kbps MP3s are worthless crap that one can't listen to even on a PC and who had to learn that they can't even tell what's original and what's MP3).
nuff said, i think.
regards
peter
PS: get me right: i don't make my living with MP3s (😉) and i'm always open to good arguments. i want the best sound possible in my room, too! but i haven't seen (better: heard) a system that offered the possibilty to tell the difference between an excellent MP3 and CD.
mp3 really isn´t crappy at all!
There is a forum that tuned the Lame encoder to a quality it will
surprise every "Audiophile". You can find recommended settings for
every particular bitrate there at hydrogenaudio.org (audio-illumination)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&st=0
Myself i prefer the variable bitrate encoding. This is why i did a little
testing for lame and offered some test samples.
--alt-preset standard -Z together with lame is my limit where i can´t
really discern from the original with good headphones.
Be aware that all counts for lame 3.90 to lame 3.92.
The newer versions have better algorythms but are not tested to a big
extend.
For more info just search hydrogen or ask your question. There you will be helped
further for sure!
There is a forum that tuned the Lame encoder to a quality it will
surprise every "Audiophile". You can find recommended settings for
every particular bitrate there at hydrogenaudio.org (audio-illumination)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&st=0
Myself i prefer the variable bitrate encoding. This is why i did a little
testing for lame and offered some test samples.
--alt-preset standard -Z together with lame is my limit where i can´t
really discern from the original with good headphones.
Be aware that all counts for lame 3.90 to lame 3.92.
The newer versions have better algorythms but are not tested to a big
extend.
For more info just search hydrogen or ask your question. There you will be helped
further for sure!
Hi!
Most important is that people start to learn to encode their music with VBR or ABR, not CBR.
The most often used format is CBR (=constant bitrate) at 128 kbit/s. Nowadays I see a lot of people who want to get decent sound quality and encode at CBR 192 kbit/s or even CBR 256 kbit/s.
Ha?
That's crappy! VBR (= variable bitrate) is the only good thing that Xing ever brought the mp3 community, and people should start using it. I recommend the presets of LAME, which (at quality settings) all use ABR (=average bitrate).
I use ABR set to 192 kbit/s, with bitrate boundaries set to 96 kbit/s as lower boundary, and 320 kbit/s as high boundary. And I say nobody will hear a difference to the original material, or if you hear it, most often the mp3 sounds a little bit better (that was the actual result that listening tests often produced - its the same with people liking the "sound" of the Son of Zen, for example, which also reproduces the sound not exactly like it should, but since most listeners like the music better that way, who cares? LCAudio's The End Millenium for example preserves sound quality I would say as much as possible, and people find it sounding too harsh... )
So that is what psychoacoustics are for.
I still buy CDs, but after some initial listening I rip all the tracks I like with EAC (exact audio copy, makes 100% correct digital copies), and then convert the wavs to mp3s (would like to use OGG Vorbis, which is even better at slightly lower bitrates, but still most portable players - and my car radio - can't play it...).
So, let's say together: Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! 😉 😉 😉
G' night,
Arndt
Most important is that people start to learn to encode their music with VBR or ABR, not CBR.
The most often used format is CBR (=constant bitrate) at 128 kbit/s. Nowadays I see a lot of people who want to get decent sound quality and encode at CBR 192 kbit/s or even CBR 256 kbit/s.
Ha?
That's crappy! VBR (= variable bitrate) is the only good thing that Xing ever brought the mp3 community, and people should start using it. I recommend the presets of LAME, which (at quality settings) all use ABR (=average bitrate).
I use ABR set to 192 kbit/s, with bitrate boundaries set to 96 kbit/s as lower boundary, and 320 kbit/s as high boundary. And I say nobody will hear a difference to the original material, or if you hear it, most often the mp3 sounds a little bit better (that was the actual result that listening tests often produced - its the same with people liking the "sound" of the Son of Zen, for example, which also reproduces the sound not exactly like it should, but since most listeners like the music better that way, who cares? LCAudio's The End Millenium for example preserves sound quality I would say as much as possible, and people find it sounding too harsh... )
So that is what psychoacoustics are for.
I still buy CDs, but after some initial listening I rip all the tracks I like with EAC (exact audio copy, makes 100% correct digital copies), and then convert the wavs to mp3s (would like to use OGG Vorbis, which is even better at slightly lower bitrates, but still most portable players - and my car radio - can't play it...).
So, let's say together: Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! Use VBR/ABR! 😉 😉 😉
G' night,
Arndt
And I say nobody will hear a difference to the original material, or if you hear it, most often the mp3 sounds a little bit better (that was the actual result that listening tests often produced - its the same with people liking the "sound" of the Son of Zen, for example, which also reproduces the sound not exactly like it should, but since most listeners like the music better that way, who cares?
I SECOND THAT!
regards
peter
PS: what's up with this forum? it took ~10 minutes for my first and ~30 minutes for my second posting to show up, my third posting got even lost!
I SECOND THAT!
regards
peter
PS: what's up with this forum? it took ~10 minutes for my first and ~30 minutes for my second posting to show up, my third posting got even lost!
What was the reproduction equipment?
I thought CD bit rate is 705.6kbps (16x44.1kHz). A recording in MP3 at 128kbps will certainly sound worse, and a 300kbps recording will sound less bad but will be noticeable on a high quality system. Otherwise people would not recognize the differences among CD players.
Well, i still have to find the music that sounds better encoded to mp3!
The fraunhofer codecs tend to sound a bit washed out what results in a smoother
sound but this is for sure not "better" than the original.
To be more exact you won´t notice a difference with a well made encoding
when the encoded sample don´t mess up the psycho-acoustic that tries to filter
out the not to be heard parts of the music. Unfortunately there are parts in music
that never will sound clean with mp3 cause of its limitations.
Believe me, i did more testing of mp3 than it is healthy 😉 and know what i talk
about, at least about this topic.
As said before, it will be a pain to start mp3 quality discussion here on this board
when there are better places where lossy encoding is discussed since they exist.
On hydrogenaudio.org you will find all answers and test samples that will show you
what the limits of mp3 are.
btw. traderman, CD audio is ~1400kbps
edit: There is also this clipping problem with mp3s and other lossy
codecs that can cause ugly sound when not handled properly.
The fraunhofer codecs tend to sound a bit washed out what results in a smoother
sound but this is for sure not "better" than the original.
To be more exact you won´t notice a difference with a well made encoding
when the encoded sample don´t mess up the psycho-acoustic that tries to filter
out the not to be heard parts of the music. Unfortunately there are parts in music
that never will sound clean with mp3 cause of its limitations.
Believe me, i did more testing of mp3 than it is healthy 😉 and know what i talk
about, at least about this topic.
As said before, it will be a pain to start mp3 quality discussion here on this board
when there are better places where lossy encoding is discussed since they exist.
On hydrogenaudio.org you will find all answers and test samples that will show you
what the limits of mp3 are.
btw. traderman, CD audio is ~1400kbps
edit: There is also this clipping problem with mp3s and other lossy
codecs that can cause ugly sound when not handled properly.
no idea. the thing is that this guy stated that he heared just anything with his golden ears and his high end stereo.
all the same, i mentioned that just for fun, it's not generally applicable (it's funny, though, that what someone really hears in blind tests quite often seems to be reversly proportional to what he thinks he can hear).
MP3 compression losses vs. CD players? hrmm... well... wombat is right, i guess... no point in broadly discussing that stuff. 😉
bye
peter
Hi!
Of course there are differences in sound quality. But I've already discussed this on another audio board, and I can only repeat time and again that if you can really always hear it, or at least more than half of the time (and again, I don't talk about 128 kbit/s CBR), you all have better ears (AND equipment) than those producers and studio musicians that took part in those ANONYMOUS A/B tests. If it comes down to this, most of the people who claim to hear the differences did not do listening tests in a proper A/B way (that is, with no access whatsoever to what data source feeds the listening equipment, and no switching noises being noticeable) - often those are the same people owning multi-thousand-euros equipment, refusing A/B comparisons with cheaper (maybe DIY?) equipment, because it might prove that they've spent a lot of money for nothing...).
And since you are from Germany, you know ct, which did thoses tests two times over the last two years, and the last time mp3 and ogg clearly won the contest - that means people noticing no difference and / or comressed audio even "sounding" better to their ears. One of those contestants was musician / producer Mousse T, to name one person.
And I personally talked with Siggi Bemm, the producer at Germany's biggest Hard Rock / Metal studio (Woodhouse Studios in Hagen, you can even look up their equipment at their internet site), and he also underlined that if done properly there is no way of telling the difference.
But believe what you will, I think that it will take a long time to overcome those predjudice against "lossy" compressions...
Btw, do you reject DVD, since MPEG really is a lossy codec?
Wombat said:
Of course there are differences in sound quality. But I've already discussed this on another audio board, and I can only repeat time and again that if you can really always hear it, or at least more than half of the time (and again, I don't talk about 128 kbit/s CBR), you all have better ears (AND equipment) than those producers and studio musicians that took part in those ANONYMOUS A/B tests. If it comes down to this, most of the people who claim to hear the differences did not do listening tests in a proper A/B way (that is, with no access whatsoever to what data source feeds the listening equipment, and no switching noises being noticeable) - often those are the same people owning multi-thousand-euros equipment, refusing A/B comparisons with cheaper (maybe DIY?) equipment, because it might prove that they've spent a lot of money for nothing...).
And since you are from Germany, you know ct, which did thoses tests two times over the last two years, and the last time mp3 and ogg clearly won the contest - that means people noticing no difference and / or comressed audio even "sounding" better to their ears. One of those contestants was musician / producer Mousse T, to name one person.
And I personally talked with Siggi Bemm, the producer at Germany's biggest Hard Rock / Metal studio (Woodhouse Studios in Hagen, you can even look up their equipment at their internet site), and he also underlined that if done properly there is no way of telling the difference.
But believe what you will, I think that it will take a long time to overcome those predjudice against "lossy" compressions...
Btw, do you reject DVD, since MPEG really is a lossy codec?
Dunno, maybe all the decoders I've tried are bad. I can tell even on my car radio when an MP3 is played, opposed to the audio CD. "Jangly" high end is a reality of the MP3 world. After 256 KBPS gets very very difficult, and not at all noticeable in the car, but midnight listening cofirms it. Even CDs burnt from MP3s lose their sheen and are caught very easily.
And that is without A/B. At night, in the absence of ambient noise, even badly recorded CDs (some old rock compilations come to mind, or even some hurried U2 compilation) sound pathetic, let alone MP3...
And that is without A/B. At night, in the absence of ambient noise, even badly recorded CDs (some old rock compilations come to mind, or even some hurried U2 compilation) sound pathetic, let alone MP3...
Cradle22 said:
I read those tests in the ducth version of ct. They weren't really good tests in my opinion. Most people listened to the tracks with different equipement. Some even used small KOSS headphones.
Anyway, I can hear a difference. Maybe it was the decoding, I dont know, but most mp3's sounds harsh to me.
my mp3 experience
I can definitely hear the difference... and this on a system with a cheap receiver with good DIY speakers. If you listen to rock, the main difference will be that the bass loses it's dynamic quality, and that the cymbals and other higher frequency sounds become harder (all the above statements refering to 300 kb/s rate). Also, there is the "jangly" treble someone mentioned that becomes worse as compression goes up/ bitrate goes down. It sounds a lot like "flutter" you would hear on a cassette.
If you listen to classical, or anything that is critical in the midrange, the soundstage is substantially reduced, as is ambience or "air" around the instruments. Dynamic range is also compromised.
A lot of people will prefer the mp3 format because of the compression they hear. Many people prefer the sound of FM radio! That is why so many pop recordings of the last 20 years have a ton of compression added to them at the mastering stage. It presents a "louder" in-your-face sound that people generally prefer (especially with their cheap systems) Those of us who have performed music, or have heard good live music, generally know better and are intolerant of this garbage.
-NS
I can definitely hear the difference... and this on a system with a cheap receiver with good DIY speakers. If you listen to rock, the main difference will be that the bass loses it's dynamic quality, and that the cymbals and other higher frequency sounds become harder (all the above statements refering to 300 kb/s rate). Also, there is the "jangly" treble someone mentioned that becomes worse as compression goes up/ bitrate goes down. It sounds a lot like "flutter" you would hear on a cassette.
If you listen to classical, or anything that is critical in the midrange, the soundstage is substantially reduced, as is ambience or "air" around the instruments. Dynamic range is also compromised.
A lot of people will prefer the mp3 format because of the compression they hear. Many people prefer the sound of FM radio! That is why so many pop recordings of the last 20 years have a ton of compression added to them at the mastering stage. It presents a "louder" in-your-face sound that people generally prefer (especially with their cheap systems) Those of us who have performed music, or have heard good live music, generally know better and are intolerant of this garbage.
-NS
- Status
- Not open for further replies.