CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test

Have a look at this page:

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

It's a bit dated, but then again the mp3 format hasn't really changed since then. I think the test results speak for themselves ...

Great find Mike, if not for the content, then for this quote

"This time our comparative listening test took place entirely in our publishing house studio, where the damping, reflection, and resonance conditions are comparable to those in an audiophile’s living room."

It's a bit like turning the world around

MP3 is a terrible regression. I think i prefer wax records.

^^ so you read the article, Olivier?

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 29 2007 at 13:30

Tony R wrote:   If you did, whatever your thoughts about the testing procedure you would not have made that statement.

The explanation is that the test system is not working (not optimized at all, as usual)and the CD source is bad. On my system i can easily distinguish a computer-burned Cd on blind test from an original, and even an audiophile-burned Cd from the original (cause it's slightly less good in the end, it lost life). If the system is not real good, the test is not valid and it's not a matter of price. Better a cheaper system, but a well choosen one and optimized than a pseudo-high end one which doesn't works. I'm sure the people who do the installation don't care about very basic things such as power phase and so. It's too easy to put some pseudo-high end elements together and to declare that it's a reference system.

...i'll go in your way by agreing that MP3 is the same than CD on everybody non-working systems. But as soon as you enter real good working Hifi, that's another song...

Everything's must be good in a system. In the article, there's mention of the Orpheus headphones which is good indeed, but what about the Cd source? A poor one. So the headphones setup may reveal the limitations of the source.

Once again, the differences are obvious on a modest system, but a 100% musical one.


Edited by oliverstoned - June 01 2007 at 07:41

^^ no need to reply to an ultimately self defeating post ... oliverstoned is basically questioning the common sense of the participants of the test and of those who conducted it ... hello? Arguing on the basis of "whoever questions my system is an idiot" will not make you many friends.

^ but if the setup was so crappy that it doesn't even reveal the difference between mp3 and CD (which is huge by your definition) don't you think that some of the participants would have objected?

Take this one for example:

"Mr. Schultzendorff works for Deutsche Gramophon in Hanover, and his primary activity is to prepare masters for the production of classical recordings"

Do you question his ability to notice a crappy setup? Or isn't it more likely that the setup wasn't so crappy, and that the difference to your setup is marginal?

A marantz Cd player a poor source? An award winning Cd player? Sorry, I prefer the opinion of the many (professional reviewers) than the few (Oliverstonned)

All reviews of this player show it to be an excellent player. Moreover in this test all formats are subject to the same conditions.