Quality of MP3 music vs compact disc?

[-Ralph-]

New thread as a spin off from this http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=189274

Does a 320 kbps mp3, played through a digital s/pdif or HDMI output, to a decent sound processor, or converted to a analogue signal by a top of the range sound card, to a decent amp and speakers, sound audibly worse to the human ear than a CD played on an equal system?

Assume an equal 44.1 sample rate.

Please only answer if you have an opinion and can explain your reasoning. If I wanted stuff off google I could go find it myself.

Thanks


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Spank86]

Not really to my ear, not with modern music although I'm told this often has to do with the way music is recorded now.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the trend has become for music producers to record at high volume and then lop off the highs and lows of the sample instead of the old way of recording it at a decent volume and getting all the intricacies but I dont know how true that is...although my older CD's (much older) do seem to play quieter.

[Bibio]

yes as there is bits missing. MP3 is a way of compressing the information and to do so it calculates what it thinks it can leave out. in theory the codec is supposed to replace the missing bits but in reality it cant as it 'makes up' what it thinks it should be.

lets take a symbol crash, there is a lot of delicate timbres that has to be included or you loose fidelity. this turns what used to be a nice smooth sound into a jagged sound.

TBH most supposed 'hifi' people buy are pretty rubbish anyway so wont know the difference.

[-Ralph-]

yes as there is bits missing. MP3 is a way of compressing the information and to do so it calculates what it thinks it can leave out. in theory the codec is supposed to replace the missing bits but in reality it cant as it 'makes up' what it thinks it should be.

lets take a symbol crash, there is a lot of delicate timbres that has to be included or you loose fidelity. this turns what used to be a nice smooth sound into a jagged sound.

TBH most supposed 'hifi' people buy are pretty rubbish anyway so wont know the difference.

But at 320kbps are you compressing it? Or does it take the same space on the hard drive as it would on a 74 minute compact disc?

[rb8989]

I think FLAC (lossless) sounds noticably better than 320kbps mp3 but only if you have a good set up. CD is superior to either IMO, again depending on the equipment. I personally think the DAC plays a large part in this, followed by the amplifier. A great dac is found in early Playstation 1's and I have modified them to take audio straight from the dac and they sound better than almost anything consumer grade today to my, and other audiophiles ears. I build valve hifi's as a hobby.

[christopher]

But at 320kbps are you compressing it? Or does it take the same space on the hard drive as it would on a 74 minute compact disc?
MP3 is a lossy format so there will always be compression no matter what you choose (320CBR, V0, etc.). To replicate CD quality you'd use a lossless format such as FLAC.

[Fallout]

As Bibio said, it's a lossy compression method so you do lose data. However, 128kbps is considered near CD quality, and is usually sufficient. 320kbps is considered archive quality, is almost lossless and it should be impossible for the human ear to detect any loss of quality.

The encoder is very important though. MP3s can be encoded in different ways depending on how samples are taken and calculated, so a 44khz stereo 320kbps constant bit rate MP3 can be encoded in different ways. Therefore a good quality encoder will do a better job and it's entirely possible that if you got a really crap one that some audio degradation could be heard even in a 320kbps MP3. However, I'm sure most compressors that come with things like iTunes and other top brand products would do a good job.

For reference, I encode my MP3s in 160kbps and cannot tell the difference.

What Spank is talking about is compression or limiting which is a method of adding 'fullness' to sounds and ensuring a consistent gain across a recording. It doesnt have any bearing on MP3 compression at all, but his point is probably that the sounds are already messed about with so much that you're not starting with a natural recording anyway. A similar effect from MP3 compression, such as a high frequency sample being hard limited by an MP3 loss curve wouldn't be detrimental.

That probably makes no sense but it makes me look like a geek for knowing about it and being a geek is fashionable these days. I may buy some glasses without lenses on ebay.

[Bibio]

yes you are as cd is around 1,400kbps

a compact disc will take a looooot more space on a HDD but you still have to convert into a codec. there is no way to store a true copy of a CD onto an HDD.

when playing a CD on a standalone CD player the payer has chipsets and some of the best are burr and brown. these turn the digital information into analogue.

when playing a ripped copy of a CD it uses a codec to decode then passes it onto the chipset to turn into analogue.

[Fallout]

there is no way to store a true copy of a CD onto an HDD.

You can use WAV. CD and uncompressed WAV both use the same PCM format, so basically CD tracks are 44khz 16bit stereo WAVs with slightly different headers.

[dizzyblonde]

TBH most supposed 'hifi' people buy are pretty rubbish anyway so wont know the difference.
I've been spoilt with decent kit over the years, I prefer to hear tiny sounds in the production from decent kit, than noise that I get out of what I'm lumbered with at the moment.

I've actually given up listening to music at the moment as I can't hear what I know to be there due to what its played on. We've got hundreds of albums on hard drive and mp3, and hundreds of albums on CD. I opt for the CD. I can play either through the Crap equipment I've got.

[Mr Speirs]

From experience the better the audio system the easier it is to tell.

I can tell the difference between MP3 and CD quality. That said 320kbps MP3 is actually quite good...enough for when I'm in a tight spot I can still sound check a PA with it.

I'd say for 99.99% of the population they are not going to have an audio system capable of letting you hear differences assuming they have the ability to consistently recognise the differences...in truth I think that even I would struggle on anything less than the types of PA system we use or studio speakers or an audiophiles home HI-FI system.

And just prove this is an informed response and not the ramblings of an insane man this is what I do for a living:

http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg488/MrSpeirs/photo-1_zpsb403bd6c.jpg

[Mr Speirs]

Oh and 256kpbs is the lowest I go for my music collection which has been MP3'd. Anything lower is horrible.

[-Ralph-]

Funny you should mention the Playstation. At Uni a friend had an Arcam Alpha 9 amp, a set of Tannoy three way floor standers, and an Arcam CD player. There was a noticeable increase in quality if you hooked up the Playstation!

[-Ralph-]

And just prove this is an informed response and not the ramblings of an insane man, I'll post it twice

;)

[-Ralph-]

You can use WAV. CD and uncompressed WAV both use the same PCM format, so basically CD tracks are 44khz 16bit stereo WAVs with slightly different headers.

Tut! Come on Bibio, even I knew that ;)

[Spank86]

yes you are as cd is around 1,400kbps
Of course thats only an upper limit.

You're also limited by what the music was before it hit the CD.

Which as Keating so rightly discerned was what I was trying to witter on about earlier in my laymans way.

[yorkie_chris]

I build valve hifi's as a hobby.

Cool :)

[Bibio]

I build valve hifi's as a hobby.

i think i need to have a word with you at some point in the near future :cool:

[yorkie_chris]

I think badger was blowing my ears away with one of his fancy guitars hooked up to a valve amp. Sounded ace!

[-Ralph-]

You're also limited by what the music was before it hit the CD.

So would I be right in thinking most commercially sold music was at 192 Kbps before it hit the CD? Hence the moniker "CD quality"?

I know anyway in the early days if you wanted to write music back to a CDR and expect it to play on a normal CD player, 192Kbps, 44.1Khz and WAV format was what you had to use.

[Bibio]

I think badger was blowing my ears away with one of his fancy guitars hooked up to a valve amp. Sounded ace!

hahahaaaaa.. no it sounded distorted and that's the whole point in valve guitar amps ;)

hifi valve amps on the other hand strive to keep that distortion at bay which is rather difficult.

[Spank86]

So would I be right in thinking most commercially sold music was at 192 Kbps before it hit the CD? Hence the moniker "CD quality"?

No idea actually, it was more of a theoretical point than anything else.

[dizzyblonde]

I once rigged up an old Vox AC30 as a subwoofer to a Harman Kardon pre amp and other such stuff.


Feck me the cat ran out the room so quick, it was like having its tail on fire. The bloke upstairs nearly slit his throat shaving at the wave of sound that vibrated our ceiling to the vibes of The Aphex Twin!!

[Fallout]

So would I be right in thinking most commercially sold music was at 192 Kbps before it hit the CD? Hence the moniker "CD quality"?

I think the final step before burning to a CD would be to convert it from whatever crazy multi channel PCM format a pro studio would use into a single PCM (WAVesque) before burning. It'd never see the horror of the MP3 format. :)

I think the "CD quality" phrase is just a label given because 192 sounds as good as CD quality to everyone except bats, though people with expensive hardware will continue to convince themselves other formats sound superior to make them feel better about their wallet famine. :p

[rb8989]

i think i need to have a word with you at some point in the near future :cool:

Cool :)

That said, my dad taught me everything I know and it is his livelihood, not just a hobby, so he'd be your man:cool: Also build guitar amps as I'm a keen player.

[Littlepeahead]

I once rigged up an old Vox AC30 as a subwoofer to a Harman Kardon pre amp and other such stuff.

Feck me the cat ran out the room so quick, it was like having its tail on fire. The bloke upstairs nearly slit his throat shaving at the wave of sound that vibrated our ceiling to the vibes of The Aphex Twin!!

We also have a feline upsetting subwoofer. It's better in our house than our old flat, where it made all the cheap door handles rattle. Playing Massive Attack's Angel still makes the cats go a bit odd and my mum's dog whine.

That was the point I was making in the original thread - that most people, and I'm glad to see lots on here are not 'most' - have such rubbish equipment to listen to their music that companies can probably get away with poorer quality formats knowing people won't notice.

My misspent youth involved a lot of very loud gigs so I have permanently damaged my hearing, but at least it was in watching the bands play live. I despair of those with cheap in ear headphones on the train every day. If I can hear their music 20 foot away surely it is too loud.

[-Ralph-]

Cool, wireless streamed MP3 is the future of music in my house under current plans, and while I have lots of stuff downloaded at up to 320 kbps, all of my old CD's I ripped at 192 kbps. It was a bloody lengthy process and really dont want to have to do it again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[ClunkintheUK]

Given the rubbish head/earphones most people seem to use, I doubt you could hear the difference between 92kbps and brand new vinyl.

I am not an audiophile, but the difference between my cheap (but still manage to not leak sound) earphones and Bose headphones is very noticeable. I've always found in non-audiophile range of kit that the basics of equipment is more important than the storage medium.

[tigersaw]

CD is 30 year old technology. At the time of launch the lack of noise, (apart from the source material) wow and flutter impressed so much it was forgiven its poor fidelity. Over the years oversampling and DAC technology made CD sound acceptable.
Its had its day, a recording made on a lossless codec with sufficient bandwidth will sound better than a CD of same material. Part of the problem is people rip/sample CD's to MP3, thus the MP3 can never expect to be a better representation.

[dizzyblonde]

We also have a feline upsetting subwoofer. It's better in our house than our old flat, where it made all the cheap door handles rattle. Playing Massive Attack's Angel still makes the cats go a bit odd and my mum's dog whine.

That was the point I was making in the original thread - that most people, and I'm glad to see lots on here are not 'most' - have such rubbish equipment to listen to their music that companies can probably get away with poorer quality formats knowing people won't notice.

My misspent youth involved a lot of very loud gigs so I have permanently damaged my hearing, but at least it was in watching the bands play live. I despair of those with cheap in ear headphones on the train every day. If I can hear their music 20 foot away surely it is too loud.

Hence why I said I don't play much music. I haven't got decent equipment anymore, and although pleasant, the recordings quality is lost. I'm a snob when it comes to music.

I wouldn't call my youth misspent. It was filled with rubbing shoulders with well known musicians, gigging, dating known guitarists, computer programming musicians, and spending time at jamming sessions, rehearsals in dodgy places and recording studios. Not to mention getting the perks from labels when waltzing in with the boyfriend.

My ears aren't too damaged, as usually gigs for me were backstage. I've certainly gained a great eclectic musical taste, and me playing instruments has been known.

Anyway, gazing back in my murky past is de railing somewhat ;)

[Bibio]

i'm holding off till they bring out audiophile blu-ray which does not seem to be happening for some strange reason till i retire the turntable. this will hopefully give us 192KHz (maybe higher) instead of 44.1 so bring us even closer to the master tapes.

[Fallout]

There's not much point in that Lance. Human's can only really hear up to 20khz (give or take for age). The reason why 44khz is the CD standard is because it takes 2 sample points to capture one sound wave oscillation. So 44khz sampling can reproduce audible frequencies up to 22khz (if conditions are right). Higher sample rates only improve accuracy of the really high, almost inaudible frequencies, which can be lost if sampling is out of phase.

[matt_rehm_hext]

from experience the better the audio system the easier it is to tell.

I can tell the difference between mp3 and cd quality. That said 320kbps mp3 is actually quite good...enough for when i'm in a tight spot i can still sound check a pa with it.

I'd say for 99.99% of the population they are not going to have an audio system capable of letting you hear differences assuming they have the ability to consistently recognise the differences...in truth i think that even i would struggle on anything less than the types of pa system we use or studio speakers or an audiophiles home hi-fi system.

And just prove this is an informed response and not the ramblings of an insane man this is what i do for a living:

http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg488/mrspeirs/photo-1_zpsb403bd6c.jpg

v-dosc?

[-Ralph-]

v-dosc

Same to you...

;-)

[Mr Speirs]

v-dosc?

Yup. 15 a side. 2 dv-dosc down fil, 12 dvs a side out hang. 2arcs in fill and 32 subs

[Bibio]

There's not much point in that Lance. Human's can only really hear up to 20khz (give or take for age). The reason why 44khz is the CD standard is because it takes 2 sample points to capture one sound wave oscillation. So 44khz sampling can reproduce audible frequencies up to 22khz (if conditions are right). Higher sample rates only improve accuracy of the really high, almost inaudible frequencies, which can be lost if sampling is out of phase.

yes the human ear at best can only hear 20-20 but the human body can feel more. besides it's all about being able to add more information that has been lost in the digital conversion. cd is pizz poor sound quality compared to pure analogue as there is no conversion with analogue all you are doing is amplifying what is there. digital is and always will be a representation of a sound unless that sound was originally created digitally like a synthesizer.

so the more information you can store in digital format given by an analogue source such as an acoustic guitar the better its going to sound.

personally CD always sounds 'shut in' to me.

[dizzyblonde]

Nowt like the squeek of acoustic guitar strings.

Better heard live.

[-Ralph-]

Yup. 15 a side. 2 dv-dosc down fil, 12 dvs a side out hang. 2arcs in fill and 32 subs

Gotcha :smt023

How did I not understand that before?? #-o