MP3s vs cd quality/flac
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=69475
Printed Date: December 01 2024 at 19:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: MP3s vs cd quality/flac
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Subject: MP3s vs cd quality/flac
Date 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?
|
Replies:
Posted By: thellama73
Date 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date 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. |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 14:33
| So are most mp3s below that bit rate? |
Posted By: thellama73
Date 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.
-------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date 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. -------------   
|
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:16
|
Catcher10 wrote:Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date 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.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date 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? |
Posted By: The Truth
Date 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) ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date 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? |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 22:13
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) |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 22:18
Because I'm not going to pay money for a file. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date 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...
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 |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date 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 |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date 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 |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 23:52
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 02:10
| OK, what does AAC stand for? |
Posted By: cobb2
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date 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. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 05:19
Exactly ... never mind the actual music, the plastic disc is what's most important. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 05:27
|
Not only plastic disc. No need in high end system, with more or less good headphones you can hear the difference, if you are not deaf. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 05:40
|
^ I disagree - and I'm far from deaf.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 09:55
|
Old debate... I would say mainly what Mr. ProgFreak say, i.e. from 256kbps and up, veeeeery few human beings can distinguish CD from mp3. If they tell you they can, they are LIARS. Science tells you that. Codecs are compared not by their 'audio quality', but by their effeciency. In other words, at a constant compression rate or a constante bitrate, which format yields the better quality. But that doesn't mean the two codecs cannot become equivalent at high bit rates. Actually, the difference between them becomes simply too thin to distinguish. Still, a few nuances are required here: - There ARE crappy encoder/decoders. - It all depends on the CONTENT. Some music can be encoded at 128kps without anyone being capable of hearing the difference between mp3 and CD, and another track can be distorted by a 160kbps encoding. I am used to encoding at 320kbps, but that isn't absolutely necessary... For my music, I use OGG. The best encoding there is in my opinion. ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 10:15
|
I rip my CDs to 64 k WMA (it's supposed to be as good as 128 MP3). I can't tell any difference when it comes to portable device listening. I whip out the CD though whenever I want to have good sit down and listen. At this point, I'd never pay for download that wasn't lossess. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 12:31
|
^^ Maybe not exactly *liars*, but nevertheless probably people who have heard some difference between some tracks at some point and ever since committed themselves into believing that mp3 is inferior. A real listening test to that effect is actually quite difficult to do - I haven't done a real double blind test either. I derive my conclusion from the various documented listening tests that have been done, plus the fact that I can hear a clear difference at 128kbps even on bad systems, and I think I can hear some difference at 192kbps, but I have never heard any artifacts with the 256kbps+ files that I normally use. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 12:33
Listen to the cymbals ... the very high frequencies usually give it away. Or on second thought ... don't, since it might spoil your listening pleasure and you might have to rip it all again.  ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 13:09
Zeroes and ones are not worth real money that requires actual work to obtain. High-quality physical objects that contain music that you can rip at the bit rate you desire and that function as permanent back-ups with perfect sound forever? A smart investment. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 13:48
|
^ Mp3 is clearly post 1989 though ... so unfortunately it's not for you.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 15:15
|
Probably the best thing about mp3's is that, while CD's and vinyl records will eventually wear out or brake, as long as the internet exists mp3's will be available. http://www.cracked.com/article_18453_5-reasons-internet-could-die-at-any-moment.html - And the internet will never die.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 17:27
Nooooooo!!!!  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 18:38
| wow, so many conflicting opinions. Well, I don't plan on not buying cds. I think I am going to definitely delve into the mp3 thing. If it sounds like crap but I like the music I'll just buy it on cd. I think that for most of the so called classics and prog cds I'll still buy the cd when possible but for more casual or just stuff I want to hear just so I can say I heard it I'll buy on mp3 though hopefully nothing under 200 kbps. 200 is still decent right? ;) |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 18:51
The beauty of the CD is that you can still rip a disc from 1984, whereas an mp3 purchased two years ago is forever compromised by the low bit-rate they provided for you. Oh, and you can always sell that CD for money whereas the 0s and 1s are money that's been wasted forever. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 19:05
How is this wasted money forever? A CD is also 0s and 1s...represented by hills and valleys on the disc. It is also digital files. You just don't like mp3s.......which is fine but eventually the music CD mass produced will go away just like the video laser disc.
Most music will be available thru the internet downloads as purchased files or subscription service.....one day.
IMO -------------
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 20:21
maybe there's something wrong with my itunes  |
Posted By: scatterplot1
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 23:57
| MP3 is fine at 128kbs for most rock/pop stuff. I prefer to rip CD's at 320kbs. Hard drive space gets cheaper all the time so It's no big deal. Plus 4.5 gigs on a data DVD is a lot of music storage. I did listen thru nice headphones to some classical piano pieces at 128kbs or even 256. I could hear the softer piano notes as they decay give a sort of digital "ffffffft" sound. But then I don't listen to classical much. Anyone should be happy with 320kbs. |
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 08:22
|
A CD is like a round USB stick. It's just a storage option for a FILE. Not saying that there's no reason to prefer the CD. I like to have a cover and a physical representation of the music... But when it comes to the music, both are equivalent (at equal sound quality...). ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 12:37
Buying the disc is easily worth it. It's something tangible that I actually own. Artwork, better quality, and as we went over before, it's something I can actually hold. I can let friends borrow it, or bring it over and show it to them with absolutely no problem. I don't like paying for information over the internet. If I'm going to do that I'll just download it for free. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: CinemaZebra
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 12:59
|
For me it depends on price. If I can get a mp3 download of an album for two bucks and the actual record for forty, of course I'm getting the mp3. But if there's not TOO much of a difference in price, I try to get the hard copy whenever I can. A CD/Vinyl collection looks way more impressive than a list of of sh*t on your iTunes, even if there is no actual difference in the music.
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 15:03
| Good MP3 (maximum variable bitrate) is excellent for me. Less than that, problems appear. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 15:57
-------------
|
Posted By: VanVanVan
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 16:10
This is my impression as well. ------------- "The meaning of life is to give life meaning."-Arjen Lucassen |
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 07:23
|
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 09:53
|
^Simply put, mp3: main format of music that can be stored on a computer = downloadable/uploadable.... whereas CDs are "painful" to burn... So mp3 can be spread extremely quickly (illegal ones I mean), whereas illegal CDs are much less accessible, beacuse the CD is a physical support... ==> mp3s (and all digital "non physical" formats) plays a great part in the recent fall or the music industry and the CD. ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 10:03
| That is very much true, as the rise in digital media's usage has definitely caused stress for the music industry. But i also feel that the music industry's inability to take advantage of the digital format has caused them unneeded stress too, as we still do not have a dedicated online music hub. although, I believe recently one of the major record labels did report a profitable quarter from just online sales. Or something like that i haven't followed the issue for a long time. Oh I think i remember, its been predicted that within two or three years online profits will exceed physical. i'm not sure in what context though. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 16:55
And yet, digital piracy is not significantly harming a single artist I care about. I think piracy is wrong, but to blame it solely for the collapse of the bloated major labels is ridiculous. The members of Metallica still don't have to ever work again, despite all their complaining. And they deserve it, they managed to make music that almost everybody loves. But they're not being hurt by some 14 year old punk with no money pirating 128kb/s MP3s of Master of Puppets.
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 16:58
I agree with every word that Henry just said. -------------
|
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 19:37
| Well, the downloading IS hurting a lot of artists, mainly new artists and small label artists. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 20:16
|
I don't illegally download anything. I've bought everything I have. I buy hard copies. I only download legitimate freebies. If the music industry is suffering I really don't care. Also, I've bought more than quite a few titles from the musician's web site.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 20:57
I said artists I care about. I am quite sure that anybody I care about it being helped by downloads more than hurt. After all, pirates buy more music than anybody else. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 23:46
|
Couple things. 1. I was never easy to make it as a musical artist. In the past you had to be incredibly popular and marketable. Now you have to be incredibly popular and marketable, or have sufficient fanbase to go on artistic excursions. 2. Bitrates lower than 192kbps are tolerable on mp3 players with mediocre earbuds, which is how most people listen to music. Once you get used to hearing music in 256, 320 kbps, .wav, and FLAC on decent headphones, you can actually discern recording techniques, the atmosphere of the studio, surround sound, and all that. Music actually takes on life. 3. I think I can tell the difference between 256 kbps and FLAC/.wav, but I haven't tried one song on one format vs. the other. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 00:03
I have, and I really can't. Maybe it's my computer's integrated audio card, maybe it's that Bose noise cancelling headphones aren't that great sound quality (I didn't purchase them), or maybe it's my tinnitus. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 11:48
Yea...I don't download anything illegally either. I do download A LOT of material via subscription service, so at least I know the record companies are getting paid and hopefully the artists are getting their due cut also. I am not concerned at all of this process because I know there are 100 hands in between my money and eventual artists hands...That's not my problem, its just how big business works.
I too, before the internet was born, have spent tons of money on 8tracks, cassettes, vinyl and CD's...I still buy plenty of CD's and vinyl, certainly nowhere near what I used to thanks to digital downloads.
Neil Peart recently talked about all this and how they really don't make money anymore on studio albums...they are lucky to break even and/or just cover the recording marketing costs. Its the touring now a days where the money is made and merchandise. $50-$90ea for tickets from Livenation or Ticketmaster and $40 for a concert tee-shirt made on a $5 Hanes t-shirt.
For two people that's a minimum of $250 for a 2 hour concert......The same Rush 2 hour concert back in the early 80's was a $15-$25 ticket and $15 for a concert tee-shirt.
(sorry this got off topic....my bad)
-------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 11:57
There are still famous people only charging $20 per ticket, they're just not prima donna rock stars. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 12:18
That's very true....there are options depending where u wanna sit. I paid $75 for Rush Time Machine tickets......could have paid $25 for lawn seating...but I wanted seats closer up.
Paid $15 to see George Clinton P-Funk All stars several months ago.
I saw Roger Waters wants close to $100 for his December show in Tacoma......NOT!! -------------
|
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 12:42
Prices not necessarily depend on artists, it's promoters' deal. The cheapest tickets to Roger Waters show in Moscow cost $100 (standing, far and from the left side of the stage). First rows cost $1000. Reports said Mr. Waters was furious when he was told how expensive the tickets were. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 13:03
I think the last pay for lawn seating show I went to was Yes on the Union tour. Why should I pay good money to sit on the damn ground? And I don't want to have to stand unless I want to either, dammit.  Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with the topic. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 13:58
You are correct..o' yee of funky hair and bearded guru....  -------------
|
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 20:49
|
Most of the Mp3 compressors I've used have no discernible artifacts at 128kbps, on my system. I use mp3 to distribute my own music over the Net, just for time and space saving reasons. 60min CD = 600Mb. 60 min Mp3 @128kbps = 60Mb. Mp3 discards frequencies from the sound which are usually illegible in frequency to human hearing, but there is a downside. eg: You can't hear a 6Hz bass signal in isolation....it's beyond the scope of human ears......but a 6Hz bass signal could cause a 600Hz signal to resonate in a way that would be noticable if you removed the 6Hz signal. It's the same with the top-end, too. Thats what makes compression artifacts......its not that a frequency is damaged....it's just behaving differently because the frequency that causes it to resonate has been removed.
The worst results I've had from Mp3 is when you compress on one system and de-compress on another. I've always used LAME encoder (freeware)......does ME fine. I encode all my music @ 128kbps. I've never used lossless compression, wma, or i-tunes, so I can't speak for them. The thing I like best about Mp3 is the fact that you can fit 100+ 6 minute Mp3 tracks on a standard CD and play it in a DVD player. Beats getting up and changing your sounds every 20 miutes.
------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |