| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Prog_Traveller 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
|
 Topic: MP3s vs cd quality/flac
Posted: July 22 2010 at 13:41 |
I was engaged in this discussion on another website(which I will not mention..lol). Many on there seem to think that the mp3 sound quality sucks plain and simple. They say it is compressed and loses something in the process. There is a flac converter but once it has been decompressed that's it. You can't undo it.
So what do you guys think? Is it really that noticeable? Is it that big a difference and can your average person really tell? Is it still worth it to buy compressed mp3s? Maybe for certain kinds of music where it's not crucial to hear every detail like say pop or punk or something?
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 13:44 |
|
To me, there is almost no difference between mp3 and CD quality, but a lot of people find mp3s intolerable. YOu could always rip your CDs as .wav failes, which are uncompressed and take up a ton of disk space, and if you decide to compress them later you can.
|
|
|
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 13:45 |
|
Once you go up to high bit rates (say 192 on wma or 320 on mp3), the difference isn't readily evident to the average listener. Go below that, however, and certain high frequency sounds begin to vanish and the cymbals sound like they're underwater.
Of course, I would advise you to spend money on physical discs that you can rip at the bit rate/format you desire, at any time and without the possibility of having it being deleted.
|
|
Prog_Traveller
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 14:33 |
|
So are most mp3s below that bit rate?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 14:34 |
|
The default bitrate for mp3s is usually 128kbps. I have all my music stored on my computer at that rate, and listen to it every day. It doesn't bother me in the slightest and I have a lot of hard drive space left over for other things.
|
|
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:07 |
I asked my dog what the sound difference is and he told me...."what are you retarded, even I can't tell the difference, you moron...now scratch my back!!!!"
Smart dog...its a yellow lab.
|
|
|
|
Prog_Traveller
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:16 |
 Catcher10 wrote:
I asked my dog what the sound difference is and he told me...."what are you retarded, even I can't tell the difference, you moron...now scratch my back!!!!"
Smart dog...its a yellow lab. |
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:57 |
|
128kbps used to be the standard ten years ago and still is when it comes to streaming audio/samples. On a half way decent system you can clearly hear the difference. I can listen to 128kbsp files and enjoy the music, but when I'm ripping audio CDs I aim for 256kbit, and that has also become the standard bitrate in online music stores. It's not simply twice as good just because it uses half of the compression rate - it is superior because it pushes the compression artifacts beyond our threshold of hearing them. That means that even on very high end audio systems, you normally cannot tell a properly ripped 256kbps mp3 from the CD source.
|
|
Prog_Traveller
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 16:59 |
|
Ok how about tracks or albums that fall between 150 and 230 kbps? How would they sound? Good enough?
|
|
The Truth
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 18:37 |
|
It's all the same to me, music is music. MP3's are like CD's evil twin. They look and sound alike but one tries to kill the other (as in mp3s are destroying the music industry)
|
|
|
|
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12732
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 21:52 |
|
I was told a few weeks ago that the Apple compresion format is far better than MP3, I just couldn't hear much of a difference, but does anyone know about this?
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7865
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 22:13 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
That means that even on very high end audio systems, you normally cannot tell a properly ripped 256kbps mp3 from the CD source.
|
If it is so I wonder why record companies still produce CDs. 
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 22:18 |
Because I'm not going to pay money for a file.
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:06 |
I will add to the number of people who can't tell the difference between CDs and MP3s. I think the people who can have better hearing than I and have spent a lot more money on audio equipment. Although I can't rule out some placebo, as Mike will attest, maani claimed to be able to hear the difference between a CD and a burned copy of it...
Dellinger wrote:
I was told a few weeks ago that the Apple compresion format is far better than MP3, I just couldn't hear much of a difference, but does anyone know about this? |
I haven't done any personal comparisons, but from what I've heard AAC retains more information at very low bitrates, but once you get up to high quality ones they're not that different. I personally use AAC just because I might as well.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:08 |
|
AAC files are about 15 times as big as most mp3 files, but they don't sound any better to my ears
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:39 |
Really? I don't remember mine being much bigger, I'll have to check once I get to my computer.
I think that these days, railing against MP3s is a way to prove that you're a "true music fan" because of the associations MP3s have with people who buy 128kb/s Katy Perry and 50 Cent singles on iTunes.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17847
|
Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:52 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Really? I don't remember mine being much bigger, I'll have to check once I get to my computer.
I think that these days, railing against MP3s is a way to prove that you're a "true music fan" because of the associations MP3s have with people who buy 128kb/s Katy Perry and 50 Cent singles on iTunes. |
I just downloaded the new Asia Omega album off Zune Marketplace mp3 @ 256kbps......
My lab just came over and started scratching my back.....'nice owner, nice owner...' he mumbled.
|
|
|
|
Prog_Traveller
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
|
Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:10 |
|
OK, what does AAC stand for?
|
|
cobb2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:56 |
MP3 is lossey - FLAC is lossless.
ie- FLAC retains all the information if converted from cda and if burnt to disc as audio(cda), will be the same as the original. MP3 on the other hand if burnt to disc will not be converted back to the original.
As people are pointing out- who can tell the difference....
Downside of FLAC across the internet is it's size- almost the same as the original cd version.
I don't know where AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) came into everything. This is a different codec that seems to be more popular in video audio.
Addition: The difference between everything is the sample rate (this is a generalisation for basic understanding only). CDA (cd audio or wav as it becomes if copied directly to a computer) is sampled anywhere between 2000 to 3000 times per second from the original analog sound. Analog doesn't have a sampling rate- it happens in time and space and is continuous while ever the sound is going. MP3 at 320kbs is sampled 320 times per second. From this you should be able to imagine that there is a lot of audio information that is discarded from the original when converting to MP3.
Edited by cobb2 - July 23 2010 at 03:09
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 23 2010 at 05:18 |
It's because people are used to CDs and are reluctant to let go of the concept of physical media. Also, the term "lossy compression" suggests a loss of quality - you can keep doing double blind listening tests ad nauseum, and people will still ignore the results.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
MP3s vs cd quality/flac
