CDs ? MP3s?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ You can still give emusic a try ... even if you only start with a download plan of 10-20 tracks per month, you can save quite some money. Over the years I downloaded 412 albums there, and I never ever encountered a badly ripped file. Rather the reverse ... some of their files are well beyond 256kbps on average. The new Peter Hammill album that I downloaded a few hours ago only has about 210kbps ... that's because there's not so much going on in the music frequency-wise (it's piano and vocals much of the time). Sounded amazing ... at least to my ears.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ Did you ever consider the possibility that when you can hear a difference between CD and MP3 it might be simply because the MP3 was ripped from a different source? For example, maybe you have a remastered CD but the MP3 you found on the internet (legal or illegal, doesn't matter for this consideration) was ripped from a different version of the album, or even from an analog copy through tape or vinyl? I'm very sure that if you rip a CD to MP3 yourself, with a proper, modern codec and at least 256kbit, you can't hear the difference.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Q6 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), . mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference. http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html It's not just me ... if you think you can hear a difference then I won't argue about that ... *personally* I think you're imagining it, but of course I'm not you, so I can't know. Q6 wrote: If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages) Analog recording is far from being "infinite" ... especially when the result is pressed onto a piece of plastic with a metal stamp. Vinyl particles (clusters of molecules) are introducing effects very much like digital quantisation. Q6 wrote: Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player. Sorry to be nerdy :) That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs. Q I rip the files to a VBR format. This means that the encoder at all times is free to choose the appropriate bitrate from a range between 64kbit and 320kbit. This is also what Amazon MP3 uses (except for some albums which are in 256kbit constant bit rate). BTW: The musical information that is ommitted in the MP3 file is not audible to most people. There are some conditions that break this mechanism, like for example when you're suffering from a loss of hearing on one side.

mmm I  was trying to add a little fact and personal knowledge/experience to your question. Unfortunately when the discussion starts talking about not believing people it stops being an informed discussion (no matter how many winks you add) .

Then when analogue...infinity bit.... is converted to vinyl groove... and molecules blah blah..., your science information is entertaining, but belongs in a hitchiker's guide to the galaxy novel. We can all do that ... either a molecule is there or it isn't ! So everything is binary / digital!  Therefore analogue is a figment of our imaginations !! And I only have 2 ears so I must my 7.1 surround sound is only in stereo. Philosphy grade 1 science It's quirky and humerous but of little real fact.

Bored now.




Edited by Q6 - June 10 2009 at 13:04

I mostly listen to CD's, but there's something magical about vinyl. So, I voted for that.

crimson87 wrote: I mean there is nothing like paying for a file.

It really depends on how you want to see it. To me it's not the file I'm paying for, it's the music. For CDs you could also say that you're paying for a piece of plastic. Ok, you get the booklet too in most cases - but that contains information that you also find on the internet - on the band's website, at wikipedia etc.. I know that having the booklet is one of the reasons why people still prefer CDs, but to me the music is still the most important thing about an album. Artwork is important too, but when you buy an album as a download today you get the artwork too, so it's not really an issue anymore.

Mostly CD's.

Legal downloads and CDS , I mean there is nothing like paying for a file.

 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), so this is the optimum middle ground between file size and quality for me. So ... do yourself a favor and never ever buy decent speakers ... you would be in for interminable torture, both when listening to the music and having to rip the CDs again.

Well, I'm pretty much doomed at this point.  But you're absolutely right.  I've hooked my player up to my main stereo system and it didn't sound pretty, particularly as you crank up the volume.  But plugging in my best headphones doesn't have the same effect.  Car stereo, OK.  Computer speakers, OK.  CD's sound great no matter what I play them on. 

I tried sticking an LP in my car CD player, oh never mind.   I'm probably losing my mind along with my hearing or something.

Q6 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), . mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference.

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

It's not just me ... if you think you can hear a difference then I won't argue about that ... *personally* I think you're imagining it, but of course I'm not you, so I can't know.

Q6 wrote: If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages)

Analog recording is far from being "infinite" ... especially when the result is pressed onto a piece of plastic with a metal stamp. Vinyl particles (clusters of molecules) are introducing effects very much like digital quantisation.

Q6 wrote: Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player. Sorry to be nerdy :) That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs. Q

I rip the files to a VBR format. This means that the encoder at all times is free to choose the appropriate bitrate from a range between 64kbit and 320kbit. This is also what Amazon MP3 uses (except for some albums which are in 256kbit constant bit rate).

BTW: The musical information that is ommitted in the MP3 file is not audible to most people. There are some conditions that break this mechanism, like for example when you're suffering from a loss of hearing on one side.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ " imagine re-ripping all of it at a higher bit rate? That'd be interminable torture" This is why I am ripping them in a high bitrate - I would hate to have to do it all over again. At 256kbit you can't distinguish them from the original (this has been proven by many independent tests - I don't believe anyone who says they can hear a difference), .

mmmm, granted its hard to tell when you skip between tracks but run 2 side by side and switch A/B and you'll notice the difference. Independent experts? 256kbps that's the sample rate conversion provided by Amazon and many of the big music sites. I provide my tunes at 320kbps and you can notice the difference but it is subtle and again it really need to be done at A/B switching level on a good system. There's a better overall "soundstage". The reason the big companies compress to 256 is because it is a compromise between quality / bandwidth and download size (their costs), otherwise they would provide higher bitrate samples. But "most" listeners on most sound systems wouldn't hear the difference.

If you are one of those that can't hear the difference then there's no problem. Unfortunately some people can hear the difference. Analogue recording was infinity-bit and digital recording is by virtue of the process harsh. Noise in the form of "dither" is even added during the recording process to hide the underlying digital distortion that occurs on the way to "red book CD standard" but you can only hear this on really quiet passages of music. (well I've only heard it in quiet passages)

Listeners are being persuaded that 256 is the norm... but when your recording at sample rates of 44,100 to 96,000 the relative "BIt Rates" (i.e. how much data per second is used to carry the signal) you can hear the difference. The relative proportions are 0.256 Mbit/sec (MP3) compared to 1.35 Mbit/sec (CD) some 5 times more information. That musical information is there for a reason. It benefits the recording and the listeners pleasure. It's not there for the benefit of the CD player.

Sorry to be nerdy :)

That said I generally rip my CDs to my iPod therefore MP3s or my Nokia phone which allows .wavs.

Q


Edited by Q6 - June 09 2009 at 03:19