CD vs MP3
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18052
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 10:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: CD vs MP3
Posted By: Bob Greece
Subject: CD vs MP3
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:28
|
Another simple poll. Can you tell the difference between CDs and MP3? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:39
|
It's a little too simple for me - but fair enough. Of course any sane person will choose "CD sounds better". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:40
|
even at 320kbps there is a striking difference given that you listen to it with the right equipment ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 06:53
|
^ computer boxes for 50 EUR (Logitech) or iPod/Creative Zen with quality Sony in-ear phones? There may be a small difference, but sorry - it doesn't affect the perception of the music, at least not for me. Even at 192kbps I rarely ever notice the compression ... and then only with cymbals/crash sounds. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Spacemac
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 07:28
CD sounds better of course 
|
Posted By: daz2112
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 13:22
|
CD ------------- In the constellation of cygnus,There lurks a mysterious force...The black hole |
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 14:07
|
not necessarily IMO, you have to have the right ear. anyway, CD sounds much better. anyway, there are other formats that can do better than mp3's today, like .wma, .mpc and also Apple's AAC which isn't bad at all. ------------- "my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III") |
Lindsay Lohan wrote:Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: January 27 2006 at 14:45
|
Cd definitely, though I personally use Sony's ATRAC3plus 64 kps on my HDD walkman. There is a difference of course but fine on the move. I tried sync-ing it with my hi-fi and there is a difference. I'd say in the warmth and definition of the music. But perfectly acceptable seeing as how I've got 350 ish albums on the HDD and its only half full!! Nice one Sony |
Posted By: craig4
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 13:08
MP3 sounds better!
|
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 13:27
|
CD of course ------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 13:42
In your (wildest) dreams... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 13:55
|
Actually it would be interesting to make a listening test between 320kbps mp3 and CD. I'm sure that most people could not tell them appart even on a good system. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 14:36
|
I've never done a listening test comparing the two on the same
equipment before, but I only know that to my ears, I stop hearing a
difference after 160kbps. I won't listen to 128kbps MP3's as the
cymbals sound pretty nasty to me.
------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 15:25
Not true! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 15:30
Remove "even on a good system", and this statment is true! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 15:58
|
^ so you agree that the 320kbps mp3 file sounds as good as the CD? I would not have expected you to say that ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 01 2006 at 16:11
|
Here you go mate, scroll down for a late Xmas present from the Admin Team:
|
Posted By: A'swepe
Date Posted: February 03 2006 at 11:59
|
The cold hard truth is that, without a decent system, most of us can't tell the difference. My CD's sound great on the stereo in the front room (complete with Bose 901's). Everything sounds pretty much the same on the $5.00 PC speakers where I usually listen to music. ------------- David - Never doubt in the dark that which you believe to be true in the light. http://www.myspace.com/aardvarktxusa - Instrumental rock http://www.soundclick.com/aardvarktxusa |
Posted By: MrHiccup
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 08:57
|
CDs sound better! If you listen carefully enough, you don't need a good system to tell the diference between them (even at 320kbps). As MikeEnRegalia said, it doesn't affect the perception of the music. It does, however, affect the perception of the sound. ------------- Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends... |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 16:41
|
CD does sound better but i prefer listening to MP3s through the computer. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 16:45
|
CD, obviously. However, it isn't too important to me. I usually rip music to my PC @ 192 bitrate, but 128 is acceptable to me (I'm not audiophile). Anything more than 192 isn't really necessary, IMO. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 16:47
|
Of course CD Mp3 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Better yet vinyl.
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 16:54
|
Depends on the bitrate... wma can sound better than mp3. But uncompressed CD-Audio is unmistakably better than low bitrate mp3 on any system, and when I listen on my Hi-Fi, I'd rather hear CD than mp3 at any bitrate. Although vinyl sounds best... |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: February 05 2006 at 17:44
At its inception, WMA was better than MP3 at bitrates below 128kbps. I may be wrong, but I've never seen any tests or studies showing WMA to be any better than MP3 at any bitrate in the last couple of years (apart from Microsoft, and these are the same people that dubbed 64kbps CD quality  ). Generally, I believe WMA and MP3 are roughly comparable up to somwhere between 100 and 200kbps, and above that MP3 draws ahead (obviously everything depends on the sample, too!). If you have any links to anything disagreeing with that, I'm happy to withdraw this post, though
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 03:16
|
The point was merely that wma can sound better than mp3, not that it necessarily does - I was being picky... And links, schminks - ears (and reasonable headphones) will tell you everything at low bitrates.
|
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: February 06 2006 at 04:21
|
CD! Definitely I'm also one of those folks who will only buy music on cd and no paid downloads... paid downloading ruins true music collections ------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |