CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38394
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 21:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 03:45
|
Have a look at this page: http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html - 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 ...  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 12:51
To quote an ancient Beatles cartoon - "It's all in the mind". 
------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 16:50
|
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 ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 17:03
|
^ at least they apologized for using telephone books instead of the hifi-magazine issues.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 13:19
| MP3 is a terrible regression. I think i prefer wax records. |
Posted By: Heptade
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 13:29
|
Buying mp3s is wayyyyy cheaper than spending 20 bucks on a piece of plastic, so I'll stick with that if possible. If it's not a perfect format, it'll probably still last me the rest of my lifespan. I too miss vinyl, though. They were works of art at best, what with them gatefolds and all. ------------- The world keeps spinning, people keep sinning And all the rest is just bullsh*t -Steve Kilbey |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 13:30
|
^^ so you read the article, Olivier?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 13:41
Oliver that is at best a bizarre statement and worse makes you appear silly ...as Mike says, did you read the article?
If you did, whatever your thoughts about the testing procedure you would not have made that statement.
 |
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 14:58
You think?
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 15:43
He knows. Come on Oliver, gives us your thoughts on the procedure, we're curious.  Me specifically, cause I'm setting up a fully digital (i.e. computerized) home studio at the moment... ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 07:24
|
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. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 07:44
The battle rages on....   ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 07:54
|
^^ 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.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:14
| I gave solid arguments. I don't see what the "common sense" is doing here. I trust the ears of the people who listen, but not the skill and knowledge of those who care about the setup. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:19
|
^ 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? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:23
| Yes but taht's not him who install the setup. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:31
|
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) ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:32
|
It's coloured and limited. Plus it's just an integrated.
It's not optimized moreover. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:39
|
All reviews of this player show it to be an excellent player. Moreover in this test all formats are subject to the same conditions. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:47
But of course the participants knew the setup. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:47
| The reviews mean nothing, like the prizes. And if it's not well installed, it can't work as well. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:48
|
^ they mean as little or as much as your statements.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 08:55
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 09:13
^ what do you expect ... it's opinion vs. opinion. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 10:36
Mike, you are the first one to criticize the MP3's poor perfomances (and constantly advocate compression-less formats) and this article was published in 2000 and I highlighted in red the magazine's name who has to prove everything in order to achieve credibility (and really failing to do so)
I will not criticize the test, I wasn't there (and couldn't care less really), but to whom does the crime profit, really!!!
Think it over the WE and read you monday.
 Thanks for pulling Olivier out of self-imposed retirement with this blatant bait, though.
 Welcome back Olivier
 BTW, please act friendly, as we are under surveillance as one of PE's mole has giving this thread's link for scrutiny... ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 10:44
|
^ "Mike, you are the first one to criticize the MP3's poor perfomances" Not true at all. I even created a thread in this section which explains how to rip CDs properly to mp3 ... it can sound awful if not done correctly, but it can get amazingly close to the original. About the magazine (c't): They are a very reliable source of information. They take their job very seriously and when they test audio equipment they always supply detailed technical information. They are a computer magazine first and foremost, but they often test professional studio equipment like for example audio interfaces. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 10:48
|
Hello sean! Nice to hear from you again.
And let me post that article: MP3 & the Marginalization of High End Audio John Atkinson, February, 1999 It was the weirdest orchestral balance I'd ever heard. The gentle woodwind chords that begin Mendelssohn's incidental music to A Midsummer Night's Dream were as loud as the climactic "Wedding March" that ends the piece. The radio broadcast was obviously being compressed to hell. Yet, sitting at the wheel of the rented Vauxhall Vectra I was driving down to Cornwall for an old friend's surprise 50th birthday party, I was actually glad for the compression. Had Classic FM broadcast the Mendelssohn with its true dynamic range intact, the quiet passages would have been irretrievably buried in the road noise and the loud passages would have had me lunging for the volume control, to the possible danger of those sharing England's congested A303 trunk road with me. Compression has its place when mandated by suboptimal playback circumstances, such as in a car. But as compression also raises the average energy levels of recordings, thus making them sound louder without their peak levels being changed, its use is ubiquitous when CDs are mastered to make them sound more aggressive on the radio. Take this issue's "Recording of the Month," for example: Mutations, from post-modern waif Beck. Of the contenders music editor Robert Baird had gathered for this issue's feature, I voted for this CD on musical grounds. And yes, Mutations does sound very clean, and the mixes have been done with musically literate intelligence. But, as revealed by the professional Dorrough loudness meter I use for my own mastering and mixing, the recording's dynamic range (footnote 1) is only a few decibels. Compare that with Stereophile's Duet CD, which has a dynamic range of well over 40dB—a 100:1 level ratio. I am fortunate to have grown up in a family involved in live music making, and to have spent my formative time playing in orchestras and other acoustic ensembles. And my active involvement in rock music came at a time when the sound of acoustic, unmiked drums set the volume level for the rest of the band. I know what the real thing sounds like, and I can recognize the effects of studio tricks like compression. (Although, as you'll read in the article on the recording of Stereophile's new jazz CD, Rendezvous, in the March issue, I am not averse to their judicious use.) However, if all people listen to at the turn of the millennium is rock recordings like the new Beck album, and Classic FM and its American equivalents, then I begin to worry about the purpose of the High End. What, for example, is the point of spending a large sum of money on a loudspeaker like the Revel Gem, which I reviewed last October? The Gem was engineered to minimize compression, but if the music its owner likes to play has had the dynamic range engineered out of it, the advance in speaker performance represented by the Gem is rendered moot. And if listeners are no longer in touch with what the real thing sounds like, can it be surprising that a medium that actively abandons quality can become successful? In his item on Internet audio in "Industry Update" (p.35), Jon Iverson states that "MP3-formatted audio files are considered to be the most popular streaming technology on the Internet." It could be argued that MP3 has been the most significant introduction of a new audio medium since the CD 16 years ago. Yet not only has Stereophile almost completely ignored the MP3 audio format, so has every other audio magazine—as has the high-end audio industry itself. But of course, you murmur, MP3 (MPEG 1 or 2, Layer 3) encoding is such an aggressive data-reduction algorithm that it does not produce sonic results that could be defined as high fidelity. Why, it even treats the basic signal as mono, the stereo illusion being provided by an attempt to encode the difference between the two stereo channels. If it isn't high fidelity, then an industry that strives for the highest fidelity shouldn't bother with it. But when we turn our backs on what our potential customers and readers are doing, don't we marginalize ourselves—particularly as we audiophiles tend to concentrate on the tools, not the experience? As Kinhluan Nguyenngoc posted on The Audiophile Network back in March 1994, "I believe the rags are leading music lovers down the wrong, component-centric path—buy the 'right' component, and everything will be copacetic." As if that weren't enough for high-end audio, societal evolution seems to be marginalizing the act of listening to music for its own sake in favor of music as a background activity. If my own experience is anything to go by, the increasing bombardment of information—from traditional media as well as from the Internet—makes it harder to budget the time to listen seriously to one, two, or three hours of music at a time. Yet I do manage to budget that time. But when I talk to multitasking Generation Xers or Yers, they look askance at me for devoting so much time to a single activity. "They think I'm nuts for just sitting and listening," an acquaintance agreed when I mentioned this to him. Perhaps there is something antisocial about cocooning oneself in a room dedicated to recorded music with a solitary chair in the sweet spot, compared with sitting with a bunch of friends watching a new movie on DVD with good, enveloping surround sound. Again, it looks as though we audiophiles are marginalizing ourselves. So if quality in sound reproduction is out of fashion and solitary listening to music as a goal is no longer normal or even socially acceptable behavior, then is it any surprise that in the midst of a boom in consumer spending, sales of two-channel audio equipment are flat? Is there any reason to think that high-end audio reproduction has a future at all? Yes. High-end audio is not dead, or even dying. As I reported last month, the introduction of DVD-Audio, with its combination of inherently better-than-CD quality combined with a native multichannel format, will re-excite the public's interest in audio quality. Sales may currently be flat, but music is fundamentally important to human existence; as an essential adjunct to music, high-end audio will always be with us. In fact, although more people are listening to poor-quality sound than ever before—thanks to MP3, cynically designed boomboxes, and shoddy all-in-one systems—the average quality of audio is higher than it has ever been, and the market for high-quality audio equipment is bigger than it has ever been. As I've pointed out in recent "As We See It" essays, it's not that the potential customers for high-end audio components have disappeared, but that the high-end audio industry has lost sight of ways to reach those customers. Footnote 1: Dynamic range is defined here as the difference between the peak levels of the loud and soft passages. Dynamic range is more formally defined as the difference between the peak level and the noise floor. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 11:00
|
^ nice article, but I don't see the relevance for the topic of this thread. He says very little about mp3: "But of course, you murmur, MP3 (MPEG 1 or 2, Layer 3) encoding is such
an aggressive data-reduction algorithm that it does not produce sonic
results that could be defined as high fidelity. Why, it even treats the
basic signal as mono, the stereo illusion being provided by an attempt
to encode the difference between the two stereo channels. If it isn't
high fidelity, then an industry that strives for the highest fidelity
shouldn't bother with it." Well, this statement disqualifies him as a reliable source of information (at least for me), since the part which I underlined is simply not true. MP3 in fact includes a feature which is called "Joint Stereo", which wasn't implemented correctly in some of the early mp3 encoders but has been fixed a long time ago (and surely the guys at c't didn't make this beginners mistake). BTW: Of course mp3 is not audiophile. It does aggressively compress the signal (incidentally: this has nothing to do with compression in the analog world which he talks about in the first few paragraphs) ... of course this only makes sense if there are reasons for doing so, like when you have limited storage capacity on a portable player, or you want to stream music on the internet where bandwith is an important factor. Remember: All that I am saying is that at high bitrates it can be extremely difficult to tell the mp3 from the CD, even with a setup which most people (exluding you, obviously) consider to be really hi-fi. Anybody who thinks this is ridiculous should really try for him/herself before dismissing it ... to do so you need a high quality mp3 file and either a good sound card to connect the PC to the hi-fi amp or a CD burner. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 11:38
| To conclude: digital was a regression, sub-digital is even worst... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 11:43
|
^ I have a question for you: In all honesty, did you ever listen to a properly ripped/encoded track like they did in the test?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 11:49
| I've done better: to compare a burned-computer Cd versus the orignal, which is, according to your theories, the exact copy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 13:03
|
^ those aren't just my theories. May I ask how the original CD was ripped and/or which software was used to burn the copy?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 13:57
The reviews mean everything, otherwise how would we know hgow to buy?
And about installatrion, its irrelevant as you called it a "poor" Cd player anyway!
I'll not waste my time further with this "discussion". I don't see anyones opinion changing. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 18:57
you're right...I need to keep out of these HiFi/Mp3 discussions...isnt rutting season over yet?
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 02:05
| This is far too interesting and no other posters should interfere - keep it up guys, you have an obligation to entertain. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 04:26
|
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:00
Mike - don't tell me I said something you approved of?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:05
|
^ so far you haven't said much in this thread ... but then again there isn't much to say either. I'm not sure why Snow Dog and Tony expect some kind of big debate. I created the thread simply to present the article ... any discussions are welcome, but it's obvious that most people will accept the test results, while some audiophiles will simply ignore them. It's the way of the world!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:13
|
For me the Mp3 format is excellent when used from the bands/ artists/ producers (or from Internet site) in stream version to promote songs or video. Otherwise I find more interesting the CD format.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:21
|
Well you did presetn it to prove a point though, didn't you?
Whilst, in the main, I accept it - I have one problem - now you've sucked me in. Whilst MP3 has improved, it still does not approach Hi-Fi quality, in my experience. Mp3s are all compressed yes? This, in itself, creates a compromise. It's fine for listening on PCs or in mobile environments, but the compression means that it's not up to the standard of CD. And, as yet, there is no high end equipment option for inytegrating into a Hi-Fi. That's my problem with it. I have no desire to listen to music on a mobile device or a PC - why would I ? I have a really good home system that enables me to hear every nuance and creates a soundstage that no small, enclosed system is capable of delivering.
We need to keep in focus here. Some folks are happy to listen to music - whatever the medium. Others demand the highest quality possible.
Another point I'd like to make - with no inferences to anyone, living or dead. Just as an aside - some folks like to have a good system and show off the sound - "How good is this kit?", they will put on pieces of music to display the impressive capabilities of their kit. Others like to have a good system to enjoy the music that much more.
We must all make our own decisions as to which camp we fall into - and respect the opinions of others who either disagree, or who just like to do their own thing.
I'm done!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:24
Another interloper!
I think this thread should become invitations only. I'm so out of place tryng to be the voice of reason.
Well, that's my take on it!
Of course, my reason and that of Mike's or Oliver's are never in accord. So, if I Mike and I never agree and Oliver and I never agree - where does that leave me when you two are at eachother's throats? Hmmmm - a paradox! |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:38
OK, Just an impression I had, from your championning compression-less formats.
About the mag, I have no doubt about its references and certainly even less doubts about their goals, and I have no qualms about it. Just that the article dates from 2000 and there was NO WAY the samples benefitted from proper equipment to listen to it back then.
MP3 Hi-Fi is fairly recent, and it is only recently that democratic (price-wise) available technology exists (at least to my knowledge as I always keep an eye in megastores like Mediamarkts).
My gripe is that this article could probably stand up today , but 7 years ago, this was most likely shameless propaganda that gave the 70's Pravda newspaper a solid competition run for the gold medal in slanted infos.
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:46
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 06:50
"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? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:02
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. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:08
No, you misunderstood. I'm not doubting that you, or anyone else chooses to listen through their PC - I just cannot think of any good reason why I would want to. It does not matter in the slightest how good a sound card or how good the PC speakers are. Despite what high opinions you have of your PC setup, and I'm sure they are top-notch, they cannot possibly match the quality of a dedicated quality Hi-fi. And in NO WAY can they come close to any sort of soundstaging. Not possible - not in a billion years. If you think they can - that's up to you - you listen how you want and everyone else will do the same.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:12
|
^ could you define "soundstaging" for me?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:13
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.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:29
I know. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:34
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.
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.
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. 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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:35
Just checking
And that wasn't really for your benefit - more of an important generalisation that needed making. It was aimed more for those who might be casual observers. or perhaps for those who judge equipment solely on reviews or on figures. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:40
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.
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.
Hope I'm clearer this time around (true enough y sentence was not really that clear) ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 07:56
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 08:00
| I wasn't talking about soundstaging inreference to the article or any other article - I was simply stating the importance to me - and explaining. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 08:02
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 08:04
But please: Why can't I achive soundstaging with a PC? All I need to do is to connect the PC to the amp ... or to burn the computer files to CD. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 08:36
Plenty to do
.But first I'd like to say that there are still many computer-burned Cds getting refused in my car deck, in my NAD hifi in Holland or in my Yamaha hifi in my Brussels pad (but that one dates back a bit >> late 90's), let alone the mid-size Kenwwod in my Ardennes hide out. This especially so if you use high-speed "dubbing". I have a hi-fi (Phillips) burner, and even then at normal speed not all of my specific for music (as in Music-only) CDrs can get played everywhere.
I'm not talking of the MP3 format evolving or how it is/was engraved, simply that the equipment to power it up was non-existent, unless you used as you say a burned CDr andplayed it on a hifi chain. No music coming from a computer was (and still not) is able to compete with a hi-fi, no matter what sound card you give it and what of specific computer usage speakers you ty up to your system.
Listening to music from a computer could only be disastrous back then, IMHO.
I tried with many times with proper CDs and it sounded like sh*t and in some case, there was even some infos not rendered. I remember not being able to hear a third 12-string guitar playing in Nursery Cryme (or was it TOTT?) >> but Banks was also playing the odd bit of guitar on some tracks and you couldn't hear the third one.
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 08:41
Try it. But don't comment on it until you have heard what can be achieved with a top setup. You need to make the comparison. Until you have heard what can be achieved you have no baseline.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 09:41
|
^ 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). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 09:49
|
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. -------------  |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 13:54
|
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. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 15:01
| I pretty much can't tell the difference, and mp3 format is so much more convenient. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 15:47
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!
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 16:32
It is this way of making statements that makes people feel audiophiles think non-audiophiles are idiots.  Someone could write a similar statement about you, Glueman - just looking at the following line from your post about 'soundstaging'. Now when listening via a PC this will not be experienced because of the physical limitations of the speakers and their relative position. You're mixing facts and assumptions here - I can imagine that the physical properties of PC speakers have a negative effect, but the position statement is bollocks - nothing prevents a PC user from creating a topology similar to e.g. Oliver's by changing default cabels for longer once (gold cables if you wish). As long as the arguments here are based on assumptions about a the quality of hi-fi and PC set ups that one (Mike in case of his PC, Oliver or you in case of your hi-fi/high-end system set ups) or none of you (the ct set up), this whole discussion makes little or no sense. So, with that said - would someone here be willing or able to explain objectively what this test does and does not show? I'm confused by the white noise here.... ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 05:00
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! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 05:10
The test shows that a bunch of people with solid background knowledge and experience on hi-fi had serious problems telling the original CD from the 256kbit mp3 on a reasonably good hi-fi system. The audiophiles can of course simply refuse the system ... blame it on the cables, or power filters, or any other detail that wasn't mentioned by c't which - in their humble opinion - could affect the quality so much that it becomes impossible to tell the samples apart. But I think that it's pretty obvious to everyone except them that this is a really lame excuse. After all, they claim that there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between mp3 and CD ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 07:56
This could have been an answer, if you stopped where I started crossing things out, and added some details on what 'a reasonably good hi-fi' system is.(And at this time, I'm happily enjoying my MPs and Oggs by connecting my notebook to my home theater set up. )------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 08:11
Like father, like daughter - but it has been said before in this case. Sharon's dad, Don Arden was notorious for paying bands who had signed to him, a small percentage of their royalties - Small Faces being a prime case ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 09:26
Of course only the first sentence of my reply was supposed to be an answer to your question ... BTW: I don't know how to further define a "reasonably good system". I think what I meant was that the system which was used in the test was one that most people would agree with. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 09:29
|
Thanks
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 09:41
|
^ but the other sentences weren't simply an angry rant ... here's what I meant without the sarcasm: Audiophiles claim that the difference between mp3 and CD is striking ... due to them it is so huge that you can't enjoy mp3 files at all, even at high bitrates. But the test showed that many people couldn't tell the difference. Now if that was due to a flaw in the system (like oliver suggested ... bad cables, power filters etc) wouldn't the participants have noticed that and protested? In short: If the difference in quality was as huge as the audiophiles say, you wouldn't need a stellar system to hear it. Or the other way round: If you need a stellar system to hear the difference, then the difference cannot be that huge. Simple logic! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 09:47
|
Got it, but it's bound not to be the end of the discussion. I'd love to see an objective statement from the audiophile side of this discussion as well - so without opinions and assumptions about other people's set ups, just about the test. (feel like a talk show host here )------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 09:55
|
^ I'd love to get objective statements ... but usually audiophiles don't make them. That's why on some websites the struggle between audiophiles and non-audiophiles is referred to as "subjectivists vs. objectivists" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile - Example ).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 11:07
|
....and the end argument is "Well you haven't heard my system". ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 11:07
Interesting disclaimer:
But, let's see what happens here. Oliver, Glueman, votes please. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 12:45
Just how much time have you devoted to listening to Mp3s Glueman?
From your RYM profile/rant:
I have no MP3 files. This is mainly because I prefer to listen on a "proper" hi-fi, but also, given my stance on legitimacy, this means I would NOT share or swap sound files.
The last bit is very admirable, though I think you'll find that Mike shares the same ethic. However the first sentence suggests you are far from qualified to make your bold claims about Mp3. Second hand opinion is all well and good but it does rather weaken your argument.
I'm not saying I dont enjoy your argument (it's not a debate you're presenting as that implies reasoning and you are obviously not able to do that ) but you are very scathing of other people and this I do not enjoy.
http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1 - http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 14:20
|
Ahhh, back again and the debate still rages on! This is one where I can comfortably dip a toe in both camps. Mike, I believe Glueman is talking about the average PC-based system - consisting of computer, soundcard and monitors of some shape - versus the average 'decent' hi-fi enthusiast's system of carefully matched components, where each element has been designed to fulfill a specific function (transport does its bit, DAC does likewise, cable are system matched, pre-amp does its thing into power amp and out to speakers. In this case there is not comparison, a pc/soundcard/desktop monitor system can't hope to match the hi-fi. Here's how I know: I have both systems. 1. a pretty good hi-fi with some good components that do individual things. There's even some lovely new sonus faber speakers picked up yesterdayt to make it even sweeter. 2. In my office I have a home studio with a decent pc which has i-tunes and a lot of music stored at bitrates between 192 and 320kbps. They're routed to Creative Soundblaster (the one before X-Fi) which is pretty decent by all accounts and I'm sure I've got some records recorded with one of those. All of it outputs to a couple of Alesis One studio monitors. The sound compared to my living room hi-fi system is... errr... sh**e! It sounds flat, boxy, dull and boring compared with the pre and power amps, buffer stages, decent speakers and cd player etc etc. I listen to the pc a lot when I'm working at home and it's fine, for background listening. But for concentrating on what's going on? For hearing a deliciously decaying cymbal or perfectly accented hi-hat? Not a chance. As for MP3s, I'll use them all the time. but they still don't sound as good. Don't know what it is (maybe it is all in the head) but I do think they sound a little more brittle in the top end than a CD. Weirdly a good bit rate file will sound excellent on my Sennheiser in-ear phones and i-Pod but just doesn't sound as good on a burned CD on my CD player. However, it is bloody easy just to stick the i-Pod on the dock and let the playlists go to work... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 14:47
^ nice post!  About your computer setup: I think that some Logitech speakers would greatly improve the sound. Have a look at them here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/202-6276532-8893441?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=logitech+speakers&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go - Logitech Speakers (Amazon.co.uk) ... I would recommend either the X-230 (low budget) or Z-2300 ... both sound absolutely amazing compared to most other PC speakers *or* small studio monitors that I've tried so far. Of course they don't match a good hi-fi ... but the D/A converters of your PC sound card are good, and I bet you would get a really good sound if you connected your PC to your hi-fi. About what you're saying about mp3 vs. CD: I don't think that you can tell apart a 320kbps file from the original ... you could conduct a real test by having someone burn a CD for you which contains a couple of songs in two versions - original and mp3. Then you could try to identify them ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 03 2007 at 15:56
|
^ Doubt I would be able to tell the difference - i've pretty much got cloth ears! I do think a lot of it is subjective...I actually don't imagine the Logitech's would help. Sure, I haven't heard them so can't categorically say but those bloody Alesis Ones cost me 250 quid so they should be good (but they aren't ). I knew I should have found a pair of Yamaha NS10s. BTW... F**k me! Just listening to Fear of A Blank Planet on the new speakers and damn if that ain't awesome!!! |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 07 2007 at 19:10
|
I think it all comes down to a person justifying his monetary outlay for a stereo system. The test that is quoted, as some have mentioned, makes no note as to the listeners protesting the system(s) used as basis for dismissing the results that they themselves played a part in. I also think that there is the snob appeal. The typical "he's got a Camaro, cause he only has a 4 inch P****", i.e. the dick extender psych 101 theory. The arguing over such a petty point as the "objective" results produced by a study group with no financial gain flowing from either side of the scale would tend to indicate that some believe that something was wrong with it to begin with. But we can find people who can tell which beer is which, which wine is best, which carmaker is actually better, what female shape is most attractive, in summary what is the best of whatever that I think I know MORE THAN YOU DO. So to those people I say - you're right ! You do think you know better than me ! ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 08 2007 at 04:33
I swear you would, you really don't need gold eardrums. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 08 2007 at 04:35
|
^ do you really think that the system used in the test was so bad that they couldn't hear the difference? I would really like to know where you think the flaw is with the test.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 08 2007 at 17:39
No need to swear - but please explain - objectively this time? ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: June 08 2007 at 18:47
| What's That? I can't hear you all over the tinitus that's now with me 24/7. |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: June 09 2007 at 22:16
It sucks, doesn't it? But at least you probably had fun--I have never gone to a concert, I always hated and avoided loud noise, and I never listened to music at full volume (too loud, surely, but not extremely often or for very long periods of time).
I don't know why the hell I just read this whole thread since the discussion is rather pointless, especially for me since I wouldn't be able to hear much of the difference, I think.
|