MP3s, how and why they affect our systems, and system choices

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

Just shared this topic via our twitter.

I do expect a deposit in my paypal account, of course

[Impious 1,476]

I do want to point out this article, no matter how poorly the whole test was conducted the results still prove my point. .... But the end results are very significant, the differences between MP3s and lossless were detected by all listeners in the test.

Really, you can't make the first statement, then follow it up with the second statement. The quality of the test and methodology has everything to do with the results. If the test and/or methodology are invalid, so are the results.

From what he briefly mentioned of his test methodology, I don't see where any real meaningful conclusions could be drawn.

I do feel that differing class amplifiers can have a different overall sound, and can be distinguished while moving.

A story for another day.....but I would disagree.

[sandt38 448]

Yes, and 1400kbps? (i saw from where u got it, but experience says different)

Highest bitrate that i have is 1106kpbs,most of it is about 950, and it depends on the song what bitrate it has.

So if u use the most common bitrate of 960 it is only a third that you hear.

And you don't need the freqeuncies above 20khz or below 20hz, so those freqeuncies are gone.

That's what they do, use the loudest freqeuncies and remove everything else.

I've noticed that instruments do sound a tiny bit different(piano), and that there seems to be less dynamics.

The freqeuncies that are really high are gone so it doesn't sounds as 'clear'.(i don't like to use subjective words.)

The 'sparkling" highs aren't there, couldn't notice no difference in bass nor midbass.

Haven't tried out a song with voices so i don't know if voices are affected but according to my theory there shouldn't be any change with how voices sound.

What do you hear that is different between a mp3 and cd-quality?

(not sceptical anymore, there is a small difference not worth it if you don't have good equipment or ears, and not needed for everyday listening.)

EDIT: i compared a 256kps MP3 to cd-quality.

Apparently you didn't read the whole post. This was based on MP3 compression, so who cares about .wma at 1106?

So you conclude that you notice differences in some instruments and that there is a loss of dynamics? You notice it doesn't sound as clear? You notice sparkling highs are not there? OK, so you agree that the emotion or harmonics as i refer to them in this post are gone, and that it doesn't sound the same. So you are saying that this is correct, yet you are still arguing?

You say it's not worth it if you don't have good equipment? I guess you missed the part where I stated just that. i also mention that if you use compressed formats that lower end components will be a better choice for you.

So why argue when you just stated that in your test, which you went into with a bias opposing my conclusions, the results were the same and you drew the same conclusions I did about equipment choices based on the quality of the source material? Should I have summarized this in a couple sentences? OK here goes for you...

If you use MP3 formats like many do, don't buy high end gear. It will simply sound better on lower end gear. Why, because MP3s lose sound quality which is more apparent on high end systems than it is on low end systems.

Better?

[sandt38 448]

I do want to point out this article, no matter how poorly the whole test was conducted the results still prove my point. .... But the end results are very significant, the differences between MP3s and lossless were detected by all listeners in the test.

Really, you can't make the first statement, then follow it up with the second statement. The quality of the test and methodology has everything to do with the results. If the test and/or methodology are invalid, so are the results.

From what he briefly mentioned of his test methodology, I don't see where any real meaningful conclusions could be drawn.

I do feel that differing class amplifiers can have a different overall sound, and can be distinguished while moving.

A story for another day.....but I would disagree.

I agree to a certain extent. I would have used better methods for the test, but his conclusions still were the same. My point was, no matter how poor the gear there still is a discernible difference.

I knew the amplifier class differences would be noted by someone. But a decent full range AB sounds better to my ears than a full range class D. Even my class AB on my Brahma sounded more lively than the class D i replaced it with for a brief time.

[kirill007 52]

blablabla

Apparently you didn't read the whole post. This was based on MP3 compression, so who cares about .wma at 1106?

That is the lossless cd bitrate what i was talking about.

So you conclude that you notice differences in some instruments and that there is a loss of dynamics? You notice it doesn't sound as clear? You notice sparkling highs are not there? OK, so you agree that the emotion or harmonics as i refer to them in this post are gone, and that it doesn't sound the same. So you are saying that this is correct, yet you are still arguing?

Im not arguing

You say it's not worth it if you don't have good equipment? I guess you missed the part where I stated just that. i also mention that if you use compressed formats that lower end components will be a better choice for you.

I am sorry because i agree with you...So you didn't want me to see that i agree with you?

So why argue when you just stated that in your test, which you went into with a bias opposing my conclusions, the results were the same and you drew the same conclusions I did about equipment choices based on the quality of the source material? Should I have summarized this in a couple sentences? OK here goes for you...

If you use MP3 formats like many do, don't buy high end gear. It will simply sound better on lower end gear. Why, because MP3s lose sound quality which is more apparent on high end systems than it is on low end systems.

Better?

Yes, better, i agree with the last statement.

[Thumpper 266]

I play very few MP3 recordings in my system....most MP3 files sound really tinny ,hollow or metallic

with very limited detail difference between some instruments..I find alot of MP3's really hard to listen to

at the same time I do get the odd store bought CD that sounds like it was recorded in someones a spare bedroom.....

[Impious 1,476]

I knew the amplifier class differences would be noted by someone. But a decent full range AB sounds better to my ears than a full range class D. Even my class AB on my Brahma sounded more lively than the class D i replaced it with for a brief time.

Just exchanging amplifiers and claiming to note a difference, doesn't mean you can attribute that difference to one specific variable

You'd need to conduct the proper tests under controlled conditions the proper amount of times to verify results. Unless you've done that, results are invalid.

Amplifiers are pretty well understood. Our hearing mechanisms are pretty well understood.

I've never seen a properly conducted test that validates the audibility of amplifier classes.

[///M5 2,833]

Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s, so the bitrates 128, 160, 192 and 320 kbit/s represent compression ratios of approximately 11:1, 9:1, 7:1 and 4.4:1 respectively. So you are hearing less than 1/4 of the information at 320. Still doubt that it is audible?

It may be audible, but I can tell you my brain can't distinguish a difference.

And while driving a car no one can. I would also extend that to most listening environments. No trivial task to truly have a room that will excel in highlighting the differences.

[kirill007 52]

Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s, so the bitrates 128, 160, 192 and 320 kbit/s represent compression ratios of approximately 11:1, 9:1, 7:1 and 4.4:1 respectively. So you are hearing less than 1/4 of the information at 320. Still doubt that it is audible?

It may be audible, but I can tell you my brain can't distinguish a difference.

And while driving a car no one can. I would also extend that to most listening environments. No trivial task to truly have a room that will excel in highlighting the differences.

Didn't even think about car invironment (sp?), whilst driving i think it would be impossible to hear a difference.

[DevilDriver 28]

CD vs mp3

Here's a comparison of the various LAME settings. I use v0 or v2 for anything lossy (the majority of my collection is in FLAC). You see that v0 is quite a bit smaller than 320kbps CBR but about as good.

[shizzzon 461]

i can hear a definite loss of quality, VERY bad on 96kbps mp3...

I cannot hear a difference on 192 and up vs uncompressed.

for movies-

I cant hear a difference between 224 thru 320.

Now, i CAN hear a difference between 640 AC3 and 15xx DTS...

although these are comparing different compression codecs.

I dont think it's fair comparing 1 compression codec to another though in terms of what the topic suggests...

Point is that would mean ALL codecs at a certain compression rate sound the same and that's not true.

But, MP3 is the most common.

[Thumpper 266]

the amplifier has nothing to do with the quality of a recording..

but...all amplifiers are NOT created equal...I have heard some well built class D that sound better

than some poorly built class A/B..and I have heard some class A/B that eat even the best class D

BTW...

I am half deaf with tenitus and I can tell the difference on the first note between a good and crap amp

but that's a totally different topic...LOL

[Impious 1,476]

CD vs mp3

Here's a comparison of the various LAME settings. I use v0 or v2 for anything lossy (the majority of my collection is in FLAC). You see that v0 is quite a bit smaller than 320kbps CBR but about as good.

Welcome back.

Long time no see.

[kirill007 52]

Here's a comparison of the various LAME settings. I use v0 or v2 for anything lossy (the majority of my collection is in FLAC). You see that v0 is quite a bit smaller than 320kbps CBR but about as good.

That explains why i could hear a difference between 256kbps and cd-quality and couldnt hear it with 320kbps and cd-quality.

[Julian 641]

I can hear a difference from 90kbs to 192.. but that's just because it's a huge jump.. but from 192-320 i don't hear much of a difference.

[tommyjiggallow 0]

I can hear a difference from 90kbs to 192.. but that's just because it's a huge jump.. but from 192-320 i don't hear much of a difference.

x2

[Dutchie. 10]

I vote for a sticky.