Downloadable Mp3s Are They Killing Quality?

[WarmFluffyUK]

most of my mp3 collection are high quality VBR because these days that is the scene standard. But FLAC is getting more popular (not with the scene though AFAIK). FLAC sounds sooooo much better even than high quality VBR mp3, but the size of the files just doesn't please me.

But isn't that one of the big bonuses and the reasons mp3's came to be, i.e. small file size requirements due to low internet bandwidth? I remember when I was on dial up, mp3 in those days was a god send!

 

[sand_man]

Exactly.
I am more than happy with mp3. Actually back in those days, anything over 128kbit was too large for me to attempt to download.

 

[BaDToaD]

I have nothing against MP3s as a medium for downloading music for "checking out an album" before buying but I would then have to go and buy the original. I couldn't make do with the MP3 unless it was just an ok album and over 192Kbps. The trouble with albums that I find just ok is I never play the buggers

 

[Mr. Ksoft]

This topic just tells me how useless my ears are.

I can't tell the difference between a 128k MP3 rip and a WAV rip. I'm totally serious. I just did a side-by-side comparison and I could tell no difference.

=/

 

[StealthBagel]

I can only hear a difference between a good Mp3 and a FLAC file, or a low and high bitrate MP3 with complex, well recorded music. Some stuff sounds the same at any bitrate 128 and up, anything less than 128 is 'watery' and immediately recognizable. But audiophiles can be entirely ridiculous, spending $100+ on a bag of rocks to put in their 'listening room' (a room JUST for music? I can't just listen to music and not do something else.....) because it 'improves resolution' or somesuch nonsense like that. Not hearing ridiculous usually nonexistant imperfections doesn't mean your ears 'suck' or are 'tuned for crap' (which has no logic behind it at all), it means you're saving a lot of money because you aren't looking for problems with inexpensive listening experiences......

 

[BaDToaD]

I can only hear a difference between a good Mp3 and a FLAC file, or a low and high bitrate MP3 with complex, well recorded music. Some stuff sounds the same at any bitrate 128 and up

I would beg to differ. If you think some stuff sounds the same at any bitrate 128 and above then you aren't listening to the music on good enough kit and I don't mean audiophile kit. Even an ipod nano with a pair of Sennheiser PX-100s plugged directly into it is perfectly capable of distinguishing between 128 and higher rates. Heck even my £12 cheapo mp3 player that I use in the garden is good enough when the PX-100s are plugged into it so that's a total price of about £35 inc P&P

For info PX-100s can be found for under £20 but beware of fakes on ebay. There's an ebay guide for PX-100s that shows the differences. Read the reviews for PX-100s. It's difficult to find a bad review.

You guys owe it to yourselves to try some PX-100s if all you are using at the moment is stock earbuds.

BTW I totally agree with the fact some audiophiles go WAY over the top with $3000 power leads etc.

 

[sam fisher]

For info PX-100s can be found for under £20 but beware of fakes on ebay. There's an ebay guide for PX-100s that shows the differences. Read the reviews for PX-100s. It's difficult to find a bad review.

You guys owe it to yourselves to try some PX-100s if all you are using at the moment is stock earbuds.

I've been looking into Sennheiser stuff as I have just brought the entry level wireless Sennheiser head phones as I can no longer listen to music at night and my speakers have no bass at all. I found play.com has PX-100's for £17.99 delivered.

These are the pair I ordered.

 

[StealthBagel]

I would beg to differ. If you think some stuff sounds the same at any bitrate 128 and above then you aren't listening to the music on good enough kit and I don't mean audiophile kit. Even an ipod nano with a pair of Sennheiser PX-100s plugged directly into it is perfectly capable of distinguishing between 128 and higher rates.

Well right, I'm using hyperbole here.... I can hear a difference with the right type of music and good headphones, and there is an apparent difference between my shitty speakers and my good ones (which just died), same for headphones. Example, those nice ~$100 Bose headphones that have such clear sound and nice bass (rare in headphones)... I'd love to get some but I don't have the money to spare for such luxuries at the moment..... my point is, don't look for problems with your music if you don't have any

 

[Magus 86]

Like some others have suggested, it's not just the bitrate that makes it sound crappy. If you copy something enough times(rip a CD, burn it, rip from that cd, burn it, rip from that cd, etc.), no matter how high the bitrate is each time, it'll eventually sound like crap. I notice a slight difference between bitrates, but it doesn't bother me unless it's all scratchy and totally shitty. I'm just happy to be able to listen to the music at all. It doesn't sound different enough to bother making sure I get nothing less than 192kbps. I don't care what bitrate it is. I'll still listen to it. Shit, I used to listen to audio cassettes that were recorded by setting a recorder next to another stereo when I was a little kid, so MP3s are a step up no matter what. And I don't have to worry about my stupid brothers yelling shit in the background just to mess it up and piss me off.

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

Like some others have suggested, it's not just the bitrate that makes it sound crappy. If you copy something enough times(rip a CD, burn it, rip from that cd, burn it, rip from that cd, etc.), no matter how high the bitrate is each time, it'll eventually sound like crap.

Rubbish, if you rip it using something like Nero's CD DAE it's an exact digital copy. Only if you convert the WAVs to MP3/OGG etc will you get degradation.

 

[sam fisher]

Actually Clare, the digital approximation when ripped is a similar yet entirely different waveform. Ripping again, from this waveform will yield an again different waveform.

Each time you compress the wave that already has aliasing and contains artefacts, you will create more when it is compressed again the next time. But then again, I you use a high enough bit rate to capture an exact copy of the digital approximation on the CD, you are correct, there would be no further diminishing, but then you may as well not compress it then

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

Actually Clare, the digital approximation when ripped is a similar yet entirely different waveform. Ripping again, from this waveform will yield an again different waveform.

Each time you compress the wave that already has aliasing and contains artefacts, you will create more when it is compressed again the next time. But then again, I you use a high enough bit rate to capture an exact copy of the digital approximation on the CD, you are correct, there would be no further diminishing, but then you may as well not compress it then

Sam,

CD's are not compressed. They are in pure data format. i.e. 44.1khz 16 bit stereo.

Each time you copy that from and to your PC in that format, there is no loss, only if you convert it to MP3 or another format is there loss. Which was basically what I was saying when I said converting the WAV to MP3 in my original post.

Do your research hun.

 

[sam fisher]

You clearly lack the basic physics wave knowledge to comprehend what I said. I SAID that a CD is a digital approximation of an analogue wave. I also said that if you copied that entirely with a high enough bit rate to allow for LOSSLESS compression that you would not get double aliasing.

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

I have a clear knowledge of it hun, and lack neither the knowledge or the basic idea of digital technology. I was just annoyed at the clear idiocy of your understanding of what I said.

 

[lubidog]

You clearly lack the basic physics wave knowledge to comprehend what I said. I SAID that a CD is a digital approximation of an analogue wave. I also said that if you copied that entirely with a high enough bit rate to allow for LOSSLESS compression that you would not get double aliasing.

You are clearly an idiot!

Move along now....

 

[sam fisher]

I have a clear knowledge of it hun, and lack neither the knowledge or the basic idea of digital technology. I was just annoyed at the clear idiocy of your understanding of what I said.

It's not clear idiocy when you structure your sentences as though you are a 40+ year old with learning difficulties.... Oh Wait! You are, how silly of me!

You clearly lack the basic physics wave knowledge to comprehend what I said. I SAID that a CD is a digital approximation of an analogue wave. I also said that if you copied that entirely with a high enough bit rate to allow for LOSSLESS compression that you would not get double aliasing.

You are clearly an idiot!

Move along now....

I'm sorry, your argument is entirely based on the ad hominem clause. You do not address my argument what so ever. Freud would probably suggest you feel threatened by the complex "word slinging" of this topic and thus had to burst out with a simple and direct attack that does not truly address the true problem at hand. Seek psychiatric help, your local NHS surgery will be able to refer you to the appropriate people.

 

[Nova]

I'm sorry, your argument is entirely based on the ad hominem clause. You do not address my argument what so ever. Freud would probably suggest you feel threatened by the complex "word slinging" of this topic and thus had to burst out with a simple and direct attack that does not truly address the true problem at hand. Seek psychiatric help, your local NHS surgery will be able to refer you to the appropriate people.

Freud would probably suggest that you are a twat...

 

[Magus 86]

Okay, perhaps I should have clarified... I was referring to ripping music from a CD to either .wma or .mp3. I would never use .wav, it takes up too much space.

 

[sam fisher]

Okay, perhaps I should have clarified... I was referring to ripping music from a CD to either .wma or .mp3. I would never use .wav, it takes up too much space.

Exactly as I assumed.

 

[BaDToaD]

It's not clear idiocy when you structure your sentences as though you are a 40+ year old with learning difficulties.... Oh Wait! You are, how silly of me!

Sam you really can be a total twat at times.

Firstly when you start picking holes in peoples spelling, grammar or sentence structure you have already lost the argument.

Secondly you are not the most intelligent person on the planet even if your head is big enough to fill both cups of Jordans bra.

Thirdly we could all spend 30 minutes researching a subject on google and come away with enough knowledge to pretend we were clued up on the subject.

Finally if Freud met you he would have a field day!