Downloadable Mp3s Are They Killing Quality?

[BaDToaD]

I am so fed up with people thinking MP3s sound good. Whatever happened to quality sound?

A friend recently asked me to listen to his Sony Walkman MP3 player. I'm sure the player is fine but with 128Kbps MP3s it was as if I was listening to the music through cotton wool. I played him a 224 Joint Stereo MP3 (the lowest rate I personally use) from my sony clie and he couldn't hear much difference. OMG! What have low quality MP3s done to his hearing LOL.

Anything encoded under 192Kbps is a total waste of space on a half decent set of headphones.

Even encoded at 320Kbps which is as good as it gets MP3s are still lacking compared to the original on decent gear.

 

[Nova]

To be honest, I can't tell the difference between 320 and 128kbps, but to be honest, I mainly listen to punk rock on my portable player, so grainy sound is to be expected.

 

[BaDToaD]

I think part of the problem is that people have either forgotten how to "listen" to music or have never learned to listen properly.

Music on the move is fun but to really appreciate a piece of music you need to devote your entire attention to it.

Encode a favorite CD or a few tracks both rates and then try 128 vs 320 MP3s when you're just listening to the music. Preferably in a dark room eyes closed chilling out. Then tell me you can't hear the difference.

If you need more help listen to the high frequencies especially cymbals. Listen to the difference in the seperation of the instruments. Are they all just a big mushy sound or can you hear them as seperate entities? Do the instruments all come from in your head or is there a soundstage positioning the sound around your head and sometimes outside your head (a soundstage may require better cans than bog standard earbuds to appreciate.)

 

[mdinire]

Yeah I have to agree with you, higher bit rate makes the music sound "fuller" to me. I hope with faster internet connections lossless files will be encouraged.

 

[craigix]

They all sound the same to me. Same as some cars with £5000 sound systems sound the same to me as my 'stock' sound system.

I guess my ears are rubbish.

 

[notaz]

well I can tell a difference between 128k and >=192, but not on any track out there. Some music encodes better, some worse.

 

[Squidge]

I don't notice the difference between any music encoded >= 192 kbps. I can usually tell the difference between 128 and 192 however, although not enough that I don't enjoy it.

However, I *can* tell the difference between some songs encoded at the same bitrate, but with different software. Some software seems to make a crap encoding, whilst others sound fine. Same goes for compressed video.

 

[PokeParadox]

The sad fact is most people don't care. I can tell the difference if I directly compare different bitrates on the same song, but for general listening some tracks sound fine at 128... others are obviously degraded in quality.

I prefer LAME VBR to efficiently use the bits, but now I use Nero AAC encoder to encode my own cds.

 

[jpic3yk]

I know with a lot of older hip hop and new underground hip hop, a lot of it is produced through sampling records. When this happens (in theory) the bit rate would never go above the original source, so most of the music I listen to would never be higher then whatever bit rate vinyl is at, making a 320kb encoding pointless. Too add to this a lot of songs in this genre also have the "dirt on the record" sound which I enjoy.

I guess it's different with each genre though. With classical I could see somebody demanding loseless and surround sound because there is probably a clear difference, but with most genres it makes less of an impact.

Another reason is peoples demand for quantity over quality, wanting to save space on ipods, etc. for movies and pictures.

 

[sam fisher]

I can only just hear a difference between 192 and 320. 128 and 320 is more noticable.

I propose we sample at 1Mhz and at 12Gbsps. Who's with me?

I know with a lot of older hip hop and new underground hip hop, a lot of it is produced through sampling records. When this happens (in theory) the bit rate would never go above the original source, so most of the music I listen to would never be higher then whatever bit rate vinyl is at, making a 320kb encoding pointless.

See you are wrong there, Vinyl records are good for one reason, they store an analogue representation of the original sound wave. Thus an identical copy, not a digital approximation, thus potentially they are of higher quality than any possible digital recording (unless you sample at an infinite sample rate, with an infinite number of quantum levels with voltage differences that were tending to zero, or infinitely small so to speak). Of course they have other drawbacks as well such as being easily damaged and degrading with use etc.

 

[Ravnos]

Vinyl won't degrade if you use one of these, but at $10000 they are a little on the pricey side.

Anyway, I can't notice the difference between mp3s at a decent bitrate and the real CDs, and I have a decent stereo so that's definitely not it. Lower bitrate stuff (160 and below) cuts out a bit too much and starts to get noticeable, but just about any V2 VBR mp3s (or higher), the difference is negligible if at all perceptible. Even at 192 (CBR) I don't notice it unless the production on the original CD was especially slick. But like Nova, most of what I listen to is underground punk or metal where there's not as heavy an emphasis on multi-million dollar production quality, so that's made me a lot less anal about that sort of thing. I can still hear everything that's going on in these songs so that's good enough for me.

 

[Alghazanth]

Almost all mp3's sound same and great to me as well as they're nicely ripped.Don't think there are any important or noticable difference between mp and audio cd ; and even there are ; it isn't what I listen to music for. I listen to music I like regardless it's on a old scratched cassette or a dvd box set as long as it's good music and getting to know new bands and taking my music everywhere I go are more than enough

I usually think of high bitrate ones as a waste of hd space such as 320 or 256 kbps myself. There are also lots of examples where a 128 kbps one sounds like almost exact cd quality and a hq vbr with average 280 sounds like crap.

I really don't understand some people who demand higher bitrate albums for downloading when you upload some of 128 or 160. It sometimes reach comical situations where I guess an 320 kbps home made grindcore demo is prefered to a quality encode of a great producted album at 128 kbps...well

finally ; quality rips at 128 all the way

 

[grahf]

Music on the move is fun but to really appreciate a piece of music you need to devote your entire attention to it.

I think thats the best example right there as to why most people dont care about lossy mp3s. When your out and about, a portable music player with decent quality is adequate for just about everyone. When your home relaxing, using your high end equipment, then it makes sense to use an original or lossless format.

 

[BaDToaD]

So a quick question. Do any of you just spend an evening or even an hour or two just listening to music. i.e. not surfing the web at the same time, gaming at the same time etc?

I've been known to spend 5 hours just listening to my headphones because I got so "into" the music. B)

 

[PokeParadox]

I'm not THAT into music, but when I'm coding I like to listen to music. And very occasionally I will listen music with my decent headphones before going to sleep.
I know what you are getting at, but for me LAME VBR at say 180 or NeroAAC at around 170 is more than optimal than my ears, I can not hear any difference when directly comparing to the source music.

Also yes Vinyl captures the full sound, but all of the frequencies are captured meaning there are many frequencies which are redundant due to the limitations of the human ear. The developers of MP3 and AAC take that into consideration and throw much of the redundant frequencies away. Yes their judgement of what may be considered redundant might not suit all ears, but they are continually refining this based on blind audio tests.

 

[tim0391]

i will listen to music say on the buss surfing the net or gaming but it is just nice to have it on as background noise. as for quality you cant really tell with rammstein which i am really into atm

 

[gp32rich]

Yes there is difference. Especially between 128 & 192. Not so much between 192 & 320
It's about losing high frequency harmonics and stereo separation

So I encode at 192 to cram as much on my player as possible with reasonable quality

To encode any higher isn't worth it for portable equipment

there are many frequencies which are redundant due to the limitations of the human ear.
I have heard reliable anecdotes of frequencies way above the 'limit' of 20k being perceived. It's not about hearing individual tones, but they do add to the richness of analogue.

[after a little google-time, here it is ...]
QUOTE((http://www.prosoundweb.com/chat_psw/transcripts/rupert.shtml))
Fletcher: There has been some measure of debate about bandwidth including frequencies above 20kHz, can we hear them, do they make a difference, etc.

Rupert: OK, Fletch, pin your ears back...back in 1977, just after I had sold the company, George Martin called me to say that Air Studios had taken delivery of a Neve Console which did not seem to be giving satisfaction to Geoff Emmerick. In fact, he said that Geoff is unhappy.... engineers from the company, bear in mind that at this point I was not primarily involved, had visited the studio and reported that nothing was wrong. They said that the customer is mad and that the problem will go away if we ignore it long enough.

Well I visited the studio and after careful listening with Geoff, I agreed with him that three panels on this 48 panel console sounded slightly different. We discovered that there was a 3 dB peak at 54kHz Geoff's golden ears had perceived that there was a difference. We found that 3 transformers had been incorrectly wired and it was a matter of minutes to correct this. After which Geoff was happy. And I mean that he relaxed and there was a big smile on his face.

As you can imagine a lot of theories were put forward, but even today I couldn't tell you how an experienced listener can perceive frequencies of the normal range of hearing.

And following on from this, I was visiting Japan and was invited to the laboratories of Professor Oohashi He had discovered that when filteres were applied to an audio signal cutting off frequencies of 20 kHz, the brain started to emit electric signals which can be measured and quantified

These signals were at the frequencies and of the pattern which are associated with frustration and anger. Clearly we discussed this at some length and I also would forward the idea that any frequncies which were not part of the original music, such as quantisizing noise produced by compact discs and other digital sources, also produced similar brain waves.

Fletcher: What about frequencies below 20Hz (theoretically, the low end of the human range of hearing)... how do they affect the tone?

Rupert: OK Fletch, now we get down to the meat and potatoes... I believe it is necessary to not only maintain the frequency response, to well below 20 Hz, but to keep the phase integrity. Failure to do this produces a slight muddiness and again, it is very difficult to quantify. All of my designs are kept within a phase shift of between 2 and 5 degrees down to 10 Hz

 

[krosfyah]

So a quick question. Do any of you just spend an evening or even an hour or two just listening to music. i.e. not surfing the web at the same time, gaming at the same time etc?

I've been known to spend 5 hours just listening to my headphones because I got so "into" the music. B)

Audiophiles are a dying breed in the age of the Ipod.

 

[BaDToaD]

Audiophiles are a dying breed in the age of the Ipod.

So true

On my Sennheiser 595s through a modest headphone amp I can tell the difference between 320Kbps encoded by me with Exact Audio Copy and the original CD when played from the same source. My Sony DVD/CD/SACD player.

The actual quality of the musical notes etc is to my ears the same but the ambience and sounstage is better on the original CD. I can't hear this on every track but it is apparent on track that feature acoustic guitars, vocals and uncluttered drums and cymbals. The CD tracks are that little bit nearer the real sound.

I will state here and now that this came as a shock to me and was only apparent after I changed the OP Amp in my Headphone amp to a much more detailed chip.

 

[Ganepark32]

I listen to music far too much. I can listen on average up to about 6 hours a day. And I can say I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 320. It's also strange to say that music released on to the net is not necessarily as good as it owuld be on a CD. For example, I have downloaded some free songs from some of my favourite bands online and then gone onto buy their album and found that the quality of music on the cd is much better than that released straight online in digital form. So yes, downloadable MP3's are destroying quality.