CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test

Glueman wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: You all should give each other a chance instead of complaining about someones expertise(or lack of). Mike really knows his stuff Glueman,cut the man a break.   I'll be the judge of that.   The fact that he makes ridiculous claims that his PC system can match a top notch hi-fi actually is extemely insulting - does he take people for idiots? It would seem so! He must think we were born yesterday!

Did I say that? No. Perhaps it would be helpful if you read my posts ... it's true that I said something about mp3, PCs and top hi-fi systems, but not quite what you're saying there.

For the record: Yes, I do think that a PC system can match a top notch hi-fi. No, my current PC system cannot - I use €80 Logitech speakers which sound really good for their price, but of course don't match a top notch hi-fi system. But the point is: I can easily connect my PC to my hi-fi system ... and suddenly the music I play on the PC comes out of the speakers of my hi-fi! Pure magic, I'm completely baffled by this ... the wonders of modern technology!


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 03 2007 at 05:11

TheProgtologist wrote: You all should give each other a chance instead of complaining about someones expertise(or lack of). Mike really knows his stuff Glueman,cut the man a break.

Edited by Glueman - June 02 2007 at 15:53

I know that for some the "sound quality" is both noticeable & important. But over a certain level, I think the empirical proof is that most can't tell & don't care. With the Ipod & MP3s being shared through P2P sites, there are likely more people who listen to music at less than a "hi-fi" measure. The music itself is still the same. I've read the recent Doors' "remixes" thread & I find the idea of buying an album for the Nth time because you can now hear things that weren't there on the original ... well,  the nicest way to put it is that it's great to see people with so much disposable income. Buy the LP, 8 track, cassette, High audio quality cassette, DAT, 16 bit CD (the original CDs), remastered 20 bit CD, remastered 24 bit CD, then the remixes. Frankly, the first digital remaster should be enough to get back to the sound of the LP, or at least a digitalized version of it. I love the first Doors album as it is & was. Hearing something new for me, while it may be fun, is really not going to make a difference. It is a bit like Dave Mustaine going back & remixing, in some cases re-recording the early Megadeth albums. I won't even mention Sharon Osbourne's brilliant ploy to deny Ozzy's first Blizzard bandmates royalties by re-recording the first two albums with other musicians. AAARGH ! Bob Daisley & Lee Kerslake taking advantage of poor Ozzy ? Were they really diminishing Ozzy's fame by being able to claim part of the credit for those songs ?
Oops sorry, tangent time is over.

^ there we go again ... I'm tired of these assumptions that I don't know top systems or setups. Please: I know top systems, and I know good computer systems. *You* obviously know top systems, but haven't tried what I'm talking about. Now: who's more credible?

And these ridiculous claims that computer burned CDs sound inferior to original CDs ... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER (assuming that the burner isn't broken).


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 02 2007 at 10:16

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sean Trane wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: "the article dates from 2000 and there was NO WAY the samples benefitted from proper equipment to listen to it back then." Sorry, but what are you talking about? I've tried to analyze the sentence, but I fail - what point are you trying to make?     At the time of this article's printing (seven years ago), there was simply no MP3 equipment (stand-alone or computer-derived) able to rival with proper hi-fi system. Nonsense. What does equipment have to do with it?   The software was available, as were the computer CD drives and burners. They simply extracted the digital content of the audio CD to the computer (back then you had to be careful to do it correctly, but if you had a "sane" drive it was absolutely no problem) ... then they applied mp3 compression. And finally they used burner software to re-recreate a burned audio CD from the mp3s. I've been doing that myself in 2000, no problem.     And the burned CD can be played in any hi-fi CD player.

Sean Trane wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: "the article dates from 2000 and there was NO WAY the samples benefitted from proper equipment to listen to it back then." Sorry, but what are you talking about? I've tried to analyze the sentence, but I fail - what point are you trying to make?     At the time of this article's printing (seven years ago), there was simply no MP3 equipment (stand-alone or computer-derived) able to rival with proper hi-fi system. Nonsense. What does equipment have to do with it? The software was available, as were the computer CD drives and burners. They simply extracted the digital content of the audio CD to the computer (back then you had to be careful to do it correctly, but if you had a "sane" drive it was absolutely no problem) ... then they applied mp3 compression. And finally they used burner software to re-recreate a burned audio CD from the mp3s. I've been doing that myself in 2000, no problem. And the burned CD can be played in any hi-fi CD player.   I admit no problems that the sound quality gap etween Hifi and MP3  has been diminishhing of late, as even Bose (I speak of it because I saw an add in yesterday's newspaper) and other big brand names are putting out MP3 equipment. This equipment is just being brought out now, because of those MP3 "walkman's" incredible success. The fact that "elitary" brands like Bose are making mp3 equipment just now is simply because only recently (the last 2-3 years) the big record companies began selling their music in digital formats. mp3 players had been available long before the iPod was "invented" ... but only the combination of iPod, iTunes and the other online stores managed to extinct the traditional walkman and replace it with digital players. But don't fool yourself: the mp3 format has been stable for quite some time ... it's not like it made some huge leap of quality in the recent years.    Hope I'm clearer this time around (true enough y sentence was not really that clear) Absolutely!

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 02 2007 at 08:03

Glueman wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ could you define "soundstaging" for me?   Yep.   Let's assume you sit in the "sweet spot" between the loudspeakers. The sound should, logically, appear to emanate from the two sets of speakers. On smaller setups and low end kit this will happen (and ceratinly on PC setups). On better kit (and I won't get into what defines "better" - it's certainly not a cost factor - as I said earlier - it's one of synergy), the sound will have a greater depth and width. It  fools the brain and the sound appears to be coming from positions wider than the physical left and right speaker boundaries and also farther away than the wall behind the speakers. Poor soundstaging can be described as "flat" or "narrow". Now when listening via a PC this will not be experienced because of the physical limitations of the speakers and their relative position. Not true. Of course most "PC setups" will have this limitation, but there are some very good PC speaker sets.   Soundstaging opens up the music to the listener. To me, It is an essential factor to enjoying music. You simply hear more of what is going on. No objection here.   I have heard it argued that if you can only listen to music through top quality equipment then you don't enjoy the music but just the sound. That's baloney, I'm afraid, because music is more than important to me and when I listen to it, I want to hear it at it's best. If you can't enjoy music on a lo-fi setup then you *are* a sound freak. Of course we all try to listen to our favorite music on the best system we can afford ... but why shouldn't I enjoy music on my €20 PC speakers at work? After all, anything else is a compromise. And why compromise when there is no need? I don't use music as a background, other than in the car, I listen attentively rather in the way I read a book. Someone has gone to the trouble of writing the book - I owe it to them (and to myself) to do it justice and concentrate fully on the experience. The same applies to my music. You're welcome to not use mp3 - but the topic is whether there is an audible difference to the CD, and I don't see the relevance of your soundstage argument ... do you think that in the listening test of c't their system wasn't capable of achieving this effect, with the Nautilus speakers, the perfect room?

Snow Dog wrote:   I know.

Edited by Glueman - June 02 2007 at 07:37

Glueman wrote: Snow Dog wrote:   I don't want a big debate..believe me, I just had to comment on OS's casual dissing of a well regarded CD Player.   Another thing that needs putting into perspetive. One component, when viewed as a separate entity, has certain characteristics - accepted. However, all that changes when that component is in a system Every item in the chain has an effect on the overall sound - some negative, some positive  and some neutral. There are, literally, millions of possible combinations, some will work well and some sound like a crock or crap. Synergy is all important. It's important to realise. that just because a particular component is well respected, it will sound very different in different setups.

^ could you define "soundstaging" for me?