logo Sign In

Attention: all you "audio snobs" who hate MP3!

Author
Time

Apologies for using an thread title that may be considered inflammatory, just a light-hearted dig at certain members - you know who you are!

Hydrogenaudio.org is currently running a public listening test for 128kbps MP3. Samples from the latest versions of various popular encoders are tested against a reference uncompressed sample, and a "low anchor" sample encoded with the first ever public MP3 encoder (released back in 1994).

Link to the thread is here. By all accounts setting up the samples and test software sounds a bit fiddly, so if you fancy having a crack at this, make sure you read the included readme carefully.

I find this kind of test very interesting, so I'll probably have a go myself - although I expect with my ears I'll probably find it very difficult to reliably ABX any of the tested encoders.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I hate mp3 because Of apple treating it like some kind of revolutionary things when we should be embracing quality higher than cd's like HD audio.

CD's are still the de facto standard.  Except for the small release of Hybrid Audio, HDCD, SACD, or dvd audio supercd. 

Just becuase the us decided to get lazy and embrace napsters because poor college students preferred to steal music rather than buy it does not make it some kind of good thing.

I don't need my hearing checked ive done the blind audio test before and my ears can tell the difference between a low dvd encode and a full bitrate PCM track.

I don't even have the most expensive equipment either, and even i notice the better highs and lows on a higher bitrate encode.  Of course it does depend on the quality of the source to begin with and compression has gotten better but mp3 is still shit compared to cds and even old LP' or casettes.

HD audio might have failed in the usa due to shortsightedness but in countries who are pushing the limits of technology like japan they are still doing healthy business.  Americans really don't seem to care about 5.1 audio, lossless music or whatever.

A lot of the HD audio ideas have been incorparated into Blu Ray movies but that is still  a niche market because people just steal and download the rips of the movies rather than paying for them.

If it was not for apples Itunes things like Mp3 and other compression types automatically make me think of piracy and illegal use of bittorrent and bootlegs.  Naturally you can make the file sized much smaller.  And go for Quantitity over quality.  sure it makes music portable and you can carry it all around on your ipod.  I don't have an ipod as it is gadgedtry that is backwards video quality lower than dvd, and audio quality lower than cd.  Once they produce a product up to spec maybe i'll buy it until then steve jobs can shove it.

I don't care if it does not fit in my pocket or only fits a single cd my discman i'll take any day over the ipod simply because it sounds better.  You get a good set of bose headphones on top of that and your set. Fuck mp3 and ipod.

So uk and USA people like things backwards music as de-evolution rather than evolution or revoltionary step towards better formats and higher fidelity lossless HD encodes straight off of digital master tapes.

People who like youtube quality video won't have a problem with low quality mp3 audio as they are either retards or simpletons.

Moth3r has to be kidding that he thinks 128kbps MP3 is comparable to CD which can be several thousand kbps if not megabites per second.

MP3 is all well and good if you have a low quality dub off a casette tape to digital, but if you are a studio starting with a master that sounds better than what most people can reproduce at home why would you use mp3?

Even as a guy who does not have an HDTV or Blu ray player i consider myself an Audiophile and Videophile.  And was an Earlier adopter of DVD and i have a laserdisc player as well.  I'm not rolling in money, still does not mean i cannot appreciate quality.

Its true that the mathmatical quantifiers are way over my head when it comes to digital music and video.  After all is not digital just 1's and 0's and math.  Computers are called so because of their computations per second. All i know is what my eyes see and what my ears hear.

 

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

I had a go at one session. I easily ABXed one sample (correctly identified the compressed sample 8 out of 8 times) even with PC integrated audio and cheap headphones. This was presumably the low anchor. I could not hear any difference in the other 5 samples.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
skyjedi2005 said:

You get a good set of bose headphones on top of that and your set. Fuck mp3 and ipod.

You had me until you said this.  I don't know a single audiophile, and I know plenty of them, that would call Bose "good".  Bose are considered over hyped and expensive, nothing more.  Most "audiophiles" prefer much better speakers.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=343759&highlight=bose

Moth3r has to be kidding that he thinks 128kbps MP3 is comparable to CD which can be several thousand kbps if not megabites per second.

Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels / 1000 bits/kilobit).

That's the upper limit for CD audio.  DVD audio can be higher, but not CD.

MP3 is all well and good if you have a low quality dub off a casette tape to digital, but if you are a studio starting with a master that sounds better than what most people can reproduce at home why would you use mp3?

Who the hell ever suggested a studio use mp3?  Studios start with their master and keep it there.  Even the master has higher quality than a CD.  The master goes to the CD and an mp3.

Its true that the mathmatical quantifiers are way over my head when it comes to digital music and video.  After all is not digital just 1's and 0's and math.  Computers are called so because of their computations per second. All i know is what my eyes see and what my ears hear.

 

A guy did a study years ago (the website no longer exists) where he ran a CD and a 128k (might have been 192k) mp3 through an analyzer.  Both came out with the exact same signal.  So anyone that says they hear a difference is full of it.

And just so you know, many of the songs on iTunes are actually AAC format, unless they say they're unencrypted mp3.

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time

Some of my favorite debates online have been between engineers who work in the audio industry and golden ears who believe they can discern the subtlest nuances, allowing them to hear the improvements provided by $100/ft speaker cable and $500 power cords. These debates carry over into home theater as well, and I find it especially interesting when someone claims to hear a difference between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA--both of which are lossless.

If the golden ear is willing to subject himself to a true ABX test, what has always happened in my experience, without fail, is that the golden ear is unable to pick out the "better" version reliably. Statistically, they do about as well as someone who's guessing, and that's probably because they are. They refuse to acknowledge that the differences they hear are purely emotional, driven more by belief than anything else.

I bought some pretty decent headphones a while back (Sennheiser 595's) and listened to a broad sample of my music collection, which I've ripped to AAC format using iTunes (256 kbps). I pulled out a few of the original CDs and did a very informal comparison flipping back and forth between the CD and AAC versions, and being honest with myself, I couldn't tell the difference between the two. In an ABX test, I'm certain I couldn't reliably choose one over the other.

And I lol'ed at the mention of Bose. "Better sound through marketing."

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Debating mp3 sound quality is futile. If you want sound quality, buy vinyl, if you want portability, buy an mp3 player. As far as masters go, only an idiot records in digital. Tape creates a pure analog of the session for both current digital encoding and future methods of encoding.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time

Eh, let the audiophiles believe their ears are capable of hearing the minute differennces that make MP3s so inferior. They may be wasting their money, but it's still money going back into the economy. :P

4

Author
Time
Darth Chaltab said:

Eh, let the audiophiles believe their ears are capable of hearing the minute differennces that make MP3s so inferior. They may be wasting their money, but it's still money going back into the economy. :P

 

 If you're talking about digital formats (CD vs mp3), it all depends on the sample rate. If you're talking about vinyl vs mp3, any person can tell the difference, it's night and day.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Rob said:

 If you're talking about digital formats (CD vs mp3), it all depends on the sample rate. If you're talking about vinyl vs mp3, any person can tell the difference, it's night and day.

I got into vinyl years ago, and I remember my first listen of a new pressing of Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet (should I be embarrassed by that?). I was blown away at how "live" it sounded.

Amazing.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

For most listeners, it's not an issue, portability is much more important than quality. For people who are really concerened with quality though, you've gotta have a turntable and a good needle. It's sad to hear people debate the merits of various sampled formats. If they're really concerned with super high quality sound, they're in the wrong arena altogether. A majority of people who have considered analog have only ever heard  it in the form of the scratched up and abused records that their parents ruined with $5.00 needles. I use my ipod in the car and my turntable in the living room. They both have a place.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Rob said:

Debating mp3 sound quality is futile. If you want sound quality, buy vinyl, if you want portability, buy an mp3 player.

The test is designed to find out which MP3 encoder can produce the highest quality at a certain bitrate. Why is it "futile" to help the people - who want portability - to choose software that gives the best quality results for that format? 

If you're talking about digital formats (CD vs mp3), it all depends on the sample rate.
Surely you mean bitrate? (The audio on a CD and an MP3 rip will both have sample rates of 44.1kHz).

The interesting thing for me is that I've always considered a bitrate of 128kbps to be inadequate for MP3, and that CD-quality was only achievable with bitrates of 192kbps+. In the Napster/Audiogalaxy days, this was probably true, but on these samples encoded with the modern software I'm having a really hard time telling the MP3s and the WAVs apart.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

What I hate about MP3 is not the loss of sound quality (there definitely is one, but it's acceptable in my opinion) but rather the way that music has become so disposeable as a result.  Downloading, often illegally, has become so commonplace and easy that just as my generation (I am 27, born in '81) has forgotten the wonders of a vinyl LP (luckily for me my parents passed on their love) I fear that later generations will not understand the feeling of going to the ecord store on release day to buy a CD, flick through the booklet on the way home, put the disk in the player and finally press play for the first time.  These days you just download, listen, get bored, skip.  I myself have tons of albums on my ipod that I have rarely or never listened too - music has become cheap and disposeable. 

I hope this rant makes sense.  I am into my music big time so I might just be chatting traditionalist rubbish (although I am by no means anti-technology, I love computers and all that good stuff - I downloaded my first MP3 in 1996 and thought it was awesome, it's just that now downloading has become the norm I don't like the way it's going).

War does not make one great.

Author
Time

@ Rob ("As far as masters go, only an idiot records in digital.")

 

I guess then that 95% of the recording industry is composed of idiots then... 

In this day and age, everything is recorded and mixed digitally. True, they won't be using mp3(!) or even "CD quality"  but rather much higher bitrates!

As far as Vinyl vs MP3, I guess it all depends on WHICH vinyl and WHICH MP3... (but personally, i prefer a nice multichanel SACD - a dying format, i know, but i still love it!)


p.s. "Yoday Is Your Father", I totally agree with you! It's a pitty but it's true: Music has become disposable.

But the death of the record store is not what i'm worried about. It's mostly the death of the used CD shop - that is scary! I could name dozens of artists I love today that I discovered through used 2$ cds, tapes & even LPs picked up from used record stores, hand-me-downs, garage sales or pawn shops and the disapearance of this part of the market is really a tragedy for our future musical heritage.  Music is now deletable.

Author
Time

My example to put on the table is the CD I did for a DVD release.

Heres the approximate time line for it..

Soundtrack recordings were recorded at 15 ips (as far as i could find out) archival tape in 1981-82. The recordings comprised of both analog and early digital synth equipment and vocals that would have also been recorded to multitrack originally then bounced down ..

generation drop when soundtracks were added to voice and effects (most were stock effects so you have a generation drop there also) this was put on archival again in 81/82

this was then synced to 16mm film and dupes were made, so you have another 2 generation drops

Broadcast masters were then made from the film dupes onto 1" for broadcast so another drop there..

This is basically the end of the line as far as the analog side goes and although I say generation loss its not really the same as when you used to copy cassettes, there is a loss of quality but its not near the same as your standard audio cassette..

at some point after this the original soundtrack masters vanish - some say they were burnt in a studio fire.

D1 was intergrated with broadcasting and broadcasters started to move over to using those, typically archiving the older masters to it.

its at this point you could look at the audio as becoming lossy..

D-1 used PCM audio which was and still is considered modern day lossless.. but of course you instantly lose quality as soon as you convert to digital, its just the way it is.. look at an analog signal compared to a digital.. a 48khz 16bit signal can't get anywhere close to an analog waveform though audibly you wouldnt really be able to tell the difference not even back then with a top end krell and apogee ribbon speakers.. (once considered the pinnacle of audiophilia) except for perhaps the issue of a lack of warmth that the analog audiophiles complained about with the advent of CD and Dat..

These D1 masters were then used in making the various DVD release's around the globe which were typically released with 192 and 256kbps lossy mp2 or ac3 audio

..and then my dumb idea to rebuild the now considered lost soundtracks...

95% of the audio i had to use was taken from these dvds and the rest from a copy of the PCM taken from the D-1's  - reason being i'd done most of the work before being offically envolved and i'd not access to better sources - nor had the dvd company aside form the UK D1 masters..

Even though 95% of the CD was created from hugely lossy material that when you look at it had been through MANY generation losses and conversons It still had to be mastered to CD specs - 44.1khz 16bit.. in the end the audio sounded as good as it could be.. slightly crap..

Amusingly I saw once someone want a copy of the CD after the release had sold out on one of the sites out there - insisting it had to be a lossless copy even though at the end of the day a 256kbps mp3 version wouldnt have really been audibly any different!!..

i think its fair to say that you probably hear lossy audio alot these days without even realising it.. did you know a percentage of tv advert voice overs are recorded and then uploaded to the ad producer as MP3's! this method is accepted now, crazy isnt it? some of the sound effects you hear on Tv and film are from lossy sources..

Some modern day sample heavy music - drum and bass for example use alot of sounds that come from breakbeat libraries - it seems that the "101 breaks collection" seems one of the main popular breakbeat libraries in drum and bass, which in its self is a huge WAV collection but some of the breakbeats were took from Mp3's by the author "101's" own admission...

funnily the more lossy the consumer market gets the less lossy the professional market gets..

 

 

 

 

Author
Time
Rob said:

Debating mp3 sound quality is futile. If you want sound quality, buy vinyl, if you want portability, buy an mp3 player. As far as masters go, only an idiot records in digital. Tape creates a pure analog of the session for both current digital encoding and future methods of encoding.

Quoted for truth.  I'm 15, and I collect vinyl.

 

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)
kirkenshrir said:

@ Rob ("As far as masters go, only an idiot records in digital.")

 

I guess then that 95% of the recording industry is composed of idiots then... 

In this day and age, everything is recorded and mixed digitally.

That's correct, they're idiots. That's why a modern CD or mp3 translated into a WAV looks like a solid block instead of a nice dynamic set of peaks and valleys. They don't care AT ALL about sound quality or producing the best master or preserving the music. Those days are long gone.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time

Well, now you're just talking about volume compression, which has nothing to do with whether you record digital or analog, it's just that studios seem to be under the impression that louder is better, so they bump it all the way up, making the quiet parts just as loud as the loud parts.

I have to say, though, the album I own with, in my opinion, the best sound quality and dynamic range is the MFSL "Gold" CD of Pink Floyd's The Wall.  I have it as a lossless CD, and 320kb AAC files on my computer/iPod.  Guess what?  I've tried and tried and tried, with many different types of equipment, including a professional mixing studio here at Columbia College that was donated to us by Skywalker Sound, and I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Author
Time

If a particular format has the same or greater sensitivity to the electrical signals (that our audio devices translate from and into sound), then it's absurd to say that the format doesn't sound as good. It's plain and simple.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time

Digital recording, by its very nature, is lossy. Sound occurs in waves, and a digital recording can only approximate those waveforms. That's where the sample rate comes in and that's why many audiophiles weren't happy about the introduction of CDs; they didn't think the sample rate was high enough. CD players can use oversampling to smooth out the digital stairsteps, but in the end, that's no different than an upscaling DVD player. You can't reintroduce detail that's been lost; you can only approximate it.

DVD-Audio and SACD represent very good improvements in digital audio because they have a much higher sample rate than CD, reintroducing that analog "warmth" so many people claim is missing from CDs.

To my ears, the best audio I've heard is newly pressed vinyl produced from analog master tapes. The DVD-Audio recordings I've heard come a close second.

I can't hear a difference between AAC files I've encoded with iTunes and the original CD recording, but I do think DVD-Audio sounds significantly better than CD, and good vinyl sounds even better than DVD-Audio.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Jay said:

To my ears, the best audio I've heard is newly pressed vinyl produced from analog master tapes. The DVD-Audio recordings I've heard come a close second.

I can't hear a difference between AAC files I've encoded with iTunes and the original CD recording, but I do think DVD-Audio sounds significantly better than CD, and good vinyl sounds even better than DVD-Audio.

 

 The only people who would argue with that, and there is and endless supply of them, are people who have never listened to newly pressed audiophile vinyl mastered from the original master tapes on the proper equipment. It doesn't take an insane setup, just the right $300.00 amplifier, $200.00 phono amp, $300.00 needle, decent turntable, and decent speakers. Once you've heard such a record on such a system, there is no doubt, it's just better. I can't tell the difference between any good digital formats, but I can certainly tell digital from analog. It's a world of difference. It's sad really that so many people who are music freaks don't even give the superior format a chance. Those that do are always hooked. No matter how good a sample gets, it can't be an analog. 

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Jay said:

That's where the sample rate comes in and that's why many audiophiles weren't happy about the introduction of CDs; they didn't think the sample rate was high enough.

Yeah, I've looked into the default CD audio quality in the past and I remember thinking how it could have a better sample rate. However, while I don't know much about the old vinyl format (which could be very detailed for all I know), I just have some trouble imagining a little piece of metal twanging against little mechanically-formed grooves on a disc is really all that much more exact than what we get on CDs. In the end, all physical media rely upon limited numbers of molecular "steps" and limited levels of mechanical precision; when I see people saying big things like how "analog is better than digital," it sounds funny to me. :)

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vinyl doesn't rely upon "steps" at all. It's an analog waveform.

The biggest limitation of vinyl is the frequency response, which has a narrower range than CD. It cuts off around 18KHz I believe, whereas CD goes to about 20KHz. However, most people over 25 can't hear 20KHz very well anyway.

You hear in analog. Hearing music recorded on vinyl is like hearing live music, even with the low-level hiss and occasional clicks and pops.

If you hear a difference between music on CD and a live performance, you'll hear a difference between high-quality vinyl on a decent setup and the same recording on a CD.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
kirkenshrir said:

p.s. "Yoday Is Your Father", I totally agree with you! It's a pitty but it's true: Music has become disposable.

But the death of the record store is not what i'm worried about. It's mostly the death of the used CD shop - that is scary! I could name dozens of artists I love today that I discovered through used 2$ cds, tapes & even LPs picked up from used record stores, hand-me-downs, garage sales or pawn shops and the disapearance of this part of the market is really a tragedy for our future musical heritage.  Music is now deletable.

A great point that I hadn't considered - and sadly very true :(

 

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Rob said:

It doesn't take an insane setup, just the right $300.00 amplifier, $200.00 phono amp, $300.00 needle, decent turntable, and decent speakers.

Many people (myself included) would refer to a $300 record player as an insane setup.  Especially since they'd want most of their music portable, which means it would go on the mp3 player which would render the $300 record player moot.

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
kirkenshrir said:

But the death of the record store is not what i'm worried about. It's mostly the death of the used CD shop - that is scary! I could name dozens of artists I love today that I discovered through used 2$ cds, tapes & even LPs picked up from used record stores, hand-me-downs, garage sales or pawn shops and the disapearance of this part of the market is really a tragedy for our future musical heritage.  Music is now deletable.

Yes, but it's also much easier to share it.  You can simply share a folder of songs on Kazaa or through Bittorrent and then someone else, who may not ever be able to get to that used CD store you have near you, can experience the same music.  Then, if the artist has setup a website, they can go to that site and buy more (if it's available online).

The death of the used CD store, I think, is easily eclipsed by what the new media and technology allows us to do.

 

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.