OPINIONS: Just How Good Are MP3's?

[MOSFET]

Like many of you, over the past few years I have switched from listening to
CD's to now almost exclusively listening to MP3's. All my MP3's have a
sampling rate of 128 or higher, and generally speaking I am pleased with the
sound quality.

However, sometimes with some songs I get the distinct impression that I'm
missing something. It's hard to define (there's a French word I'm searching
for) what it is that's missing, but I can best describe it by a lack of
fullness, or perhaps a sense of "flatness", a two dimensional
representation rather than three dimensional (geez, I sound like a real
audiophile dweeb). Of course, with other songs I don't sense this at all.

Does anybody else feel this way? Have you done anything about it? Are
there any good tips out there to make MP3's sound better? Do any of you
refuse to use MP3's because of this?

MOSFET

[AntiSpammer]

i guess is the word "robust" or "clarity" that is missing in certain song
where by the bass shadows the highs.

it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a normal
song would be 8-9mb

[Tony F]

I stay at a bitrate of 160 or 192 whenever I record MP3s to CDs. I also
record them onto CD in music files, not MP3s. From my very limited
understanding, the SQ is much better using audio files vs. MP3. I don't
mind only have 80 minutes or so per each CD. I honestly can't hear the
difference between them and a CD.

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Like many of you, over the past few years I have switched from listening
> to
> CD's to now almost exclusively listening to MP3's. All my MP3's have a
> sampling rate of 128 or higher, and generally speaking I am pleased with
> the
> sound quality.
>
> However, sometimes with some songs I get the distinct impression that I'm
> missing something. It's hard to define (there's a French word I'm
> searching
> for) what it is that's missing, but I can best describe it by a lack of
> fullness, or perhaps a sense of "flatness", a two dimensional
> representation rather than three dimensional (geez, I sound like a real
> audiophile dweeb). Of course, with other songs I don't sense this at all.
>
> Does anybody else feel this way? Have you done anything about it? Are
> there any good tips out there to make MP3's sound better? Do any of you
> refuse to use MP3's because of this?
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

> it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a normal
> song would be 8-9mb
>
That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else finds a
noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.

MOSFET

[[email protected]]

MOSFET wrote:
> > it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
normal
> > song would be 8-9mb
> >
> That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
> sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else
finds a
> noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.
>
> MOSFET

Of coures, there is a noticable difference. I usually settle with 128
higher
more clearly sound..

[[email protected]]

it has been proved professionally that mp3 is as good as cd even in
top top notch professional hi fi system not to mention that in a
situation of a vehicle stereo.

Read on

c't The Magazine for Computer Technique
June/2000, p. 92: MP3-Comparison
By Carsten Meyer

Original German article: http://www.heise.de/ct/00/06/092/

Cross-examination test

The c't-Reader's Listening Test: MP3 versus CD

After our controversial discussion of some fundamental issues of MP3
encoding in the March, 2000 issue (see [1]), c't asked our readers to
perform a listening test: Unbelievers should face the task of
identifying, in 'blind flight', the source of various music
selections. The results of our test surprised not only our reference
listeners; also our editing staff was perplexed by some new knowledge
they gained.

We had stirred up a hornet's nest. Long discussions on our Usenet
forum, harsh as well as constructive letters to the editor, and angry
messages to our hot-line during business hours showed that there the
battle between MP3 opponents and supporters was still undecided after
that test. Critics accused us of populist opinion making, argued with
great technical skill about the intricacies of HiFi/Audio
specifications, and damned MP3 compression as the work of the Devil;
others praised our enlightened explanations as worth reading and
useful to dispel all the esoteric and voodoo superstitions on matters
of audio and HiFi, or simply declared us correct with respect to the
audibility (or even inaudibility) of the effects of lossy audio
compression at different quality levels.

All this persuaded us to take an extraordinary step, which we made
public in the April, 2000 issue of c't. Our critical readers
themselves were asked to distinguish MP3-encoded samples of music from
the originals in a common listening test. The participant with the
best hit quota would win a cash prize of 1000 DM (approx. US$600).
Initially we wanted to invite six readers, but we got so much response
(more than 300 serious applications within a week), that we decided
that twelve participants would be asked to come to Hanover. They were
screened initially by their qualifications and then a final selection
of that group was made randomly. We asked sound engineer Gernot von
Schultzendorff to participate and to be our assessor and 'reference
listener'. Mr. Schultzendorff works for Deutsche Gramophon in Hanover,
and his primary activity is to prepare masters for the production of
classical recordings. Without wanting to anticipate the result of this
second test, we may say that the charts in the March/2000 issue are
still as valid as before, and we don't need to recommend to any of our
former participants a visit to their hearing doctors.

Reminiscences

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.
Some readers may remember the studio from the time when the magazine
HIFI-Vision was sold to Heise. At that time, the ceiling had been
covered with diffusers (sand-filled plastic sacks), and had additional
damping elements on the walls, as well as a built-in filled bookshelf,
which made for dry acoustics. However, the former conditions of the
HIFI-Vision studio could not be completely reconstructed: instead of
the HiFi magazines in the bookshelves, we had to content ourselves
with telephone directories from the publisher's program to provide
effective acoustic lining. Our readers will have to forgive us for
this inaccuracy.

Our top class audio components were a pair of B&W Nautilus 803
speakers, connected to a Marantz CD-Player CD14 and a PM14 amplifier.
With the Straightwire-Pro cables and accessories, this combination
cost approximately 30,000 DM, an amount that few HiFi lovers could pay
for their hobby. The Nautilus speakers, of high-quality English
manufacture, are a first choice for studios and mastering rooms,
because of their balanced, analytic and neutral sound. Furthermore,
Axel Grell, from Sennheiser, (who is not related to our chief editor
and unofficial competitor Detlef Grell) provided us with the
electrostatic reference headphones Orpheus, along with the
corresponding tube amplifier - unfortunately only for the duration of
the test, because the noble small series product, priced at 20,000 DM,
was the most expensive component we used.

Four minutes

We chose an arbitrary list of musical works (17 in all, see the list
below). From each of these a one-minute long passage would be played
to each listener from the original CD, as a reference. Then, three
samples of the same passage (at 128 kbps, at 256 kbps, and again from
the original) were to be played in a random sequence. The listeners
had to determine the correct source of the three samples and record
their answers on a questionnaire. Correctly identifying the 128 kbps
sample earned the listener one point each per piece, and the same for
a correct identification of the CD sample. For correctly identifying
the source of all three versions, the contestant got three points. But
no points were awarded at all if the 256 kbps sample was correctly
identified but the 128 kbps and original CD samples were reversed. A
maximum score of 51 points was therefore possible and the random
statistical mean (caused by unequal weight) was at 14.1 points. Any
contestant who had a score greater than 14.1 would therefore have
heard actual differences in quality.

In order to eliminate variations that could be caused by different
D-to-A characteristics between the CD and MP3 players, we had the test
samples encoded with MusicMatch 4.4 for Windows in joint-stereo,
converted into AIFF format with a Power Mac G3 for the Apple QuickTime
Player, and then burned onto a single Audio-CD in a random sequence
along with the extracted CD Audio files.

Listening Test

After the first half-hour of intense listening, some of the
contestants already wanted to quit. 'A lottery', was a comment heard
many times. Many of the listeners were surprised at how good an MP3
recording can sound through the outstanding Marantz player. People
chattered about technical issues such as phase relationships, the
influence of the (imperfect) room acoustics and their personal
listening habits. They argued about the importance of good cables and
praised the superiority of analog recordings on vinyl (which
unfortunately were not available for the listening test).

During the pause and after the official common part of the test,
several doubting contestants were allowed to use the Orpheus
headphones to help listen to and classify the individual pieces. They
were also then permitted to jump from one passage to another in direct
one-to-one comparisons between the individual versions, which
obviously could not be done in the common listening test.

First Place Winner

The unofficial winner, with 26 total points was our 'reference
listener' Gernot von Schultzendorff who, after over an hour of
intensive listening, had to admit he was exhausted. 'That was hard.
It
seemed to me almost as if some of the 256 kbps samples sounded
somewhat rounder and more pleasing than the originals from the CD. One
cannot let oneself be distracted by those characteristics', he said.
And, in fact, people often incorrectly chose the 256 kbps sample as
the original CD version.

Among the invited readers, Mirko E=DFling from Schopp, a student
electronics developer, won first place. According to his own statement
on his application, he 'can predict the sound of an audio circuit by
the mere sight of it'. He won with 22 points. Given the test
conditions of foreign acoustics, performance stress, unfamiliar
equipment, and sub-optimal listening conditions, he achieved an
absolutely respectable score that garnered him the first place prize
of our competition: 1000 DM, in cash.

We were somewhat surprised when we found out about his musical
preferences. 'In fact I cheated a little in my application. I really
have a classical piano training, but as an active amateur musician, I
prefer to perform punk-rock', said he. Prior to the test, he practiced
intensely by listening to different kinds of MP3s. He had a final
success rate of 90% with 128 kbps encoding, and that despite a severe
handicap. 'Since an accident involving an explosion I can hear on my
left-side only up to 8 kHz, and on the right side I had a stubborn
ringing until recently. However, I can catch the typical flanging
effects of the MP3 filters and maybe do that better than my
competitors because of my hearing impairment.'

There may be some truth in this. The basis for the psycho-acoustic
model of MP3 encoding originates from a person with normal hearing.
Someone who can perceive frequencies up to only 8 kHz will not hear a
bright cymbal or triangle crash, but will probably hear the
normalization noise of the filters in the lower frequencies, because
in this case the noise will not be appropriately masked by high
frequency sounds. Sharp notch filters, as implemented in the MP3
decoders, can generate a flanging (or jet effect) when the signal
changes rapidly.

So it isn't those with perfect hearing, but those that deviate
strongly from normal that seem to be especially sensitive to MP3
artifacts. Psycho-acoustic masking effects are at the basis of the MP3
encoding algorithm (the alarm clock goes on ticking even when it rings
[but the algorithm doesn't encode the ticking because it will be
masked by the ringing anyway G.]; and the algorithm relies upon such
effects also in the case of the generated normalization noises, which
in general are supposed to be masked by the useful signals. But when a
hearing impairment cause these noises to surface they will be much
easier to detect.

A Shared Second Place

With 20 points each, Jochen K=E4hler and Tom Weidner from Nuremberg both
achieved second place, followed by Martin Eisenmann from Hamburg. Mr.
Eisenmann owns the big B&W Nautilus 801, and because of his 'deep
appreciation of music and desire to accept nothing but the best' he
spent 40,000 DM on his stereo system. Tom Weidner is an engineer who
develops hearing aids, works on audio signal processing algorithms,
and is used to participating 'in complex sound tests, mostly dealing
with finding artifacts and sound differences'. Jochen K=E4hler had a
previous opportunity while employed at the Fraunhofer IIS in Erlangen,
to work on the Advanced Audio Coding and other MP3 successors.

Stefan Weiler from Hamb=FChren, blind from birth and an ardent listener
of classical, jazz and of "serious light music", possesses perfect
pitch and has been actively involved in the development of the
'Kunstkopf' recording apparatus [a recording device in the form of a
human head with microphones in the place of the ears, used to obtain a
more realistic stereo effect in recording (G)]. Because of an
inadvertent mistake when communicating his choice to his companion he
came in at an undistinguished fourth place. If he had not
inadvertently switched the Brahms samples, he too would have amassed
20 points. As a consolation we have promised him the opportunity to
work on a campaign we are launching for the sight impaired. Weiler
identified MP3 encodings chiefly by the lack of "spatiality of the
rustle in the silent passages", as he explained.

>From a statistical point of view

It's true that the data we collected does not support watertight
conclusions, but they do provide interesting insights. We wanted to
find out which pieces of music were the hardest to distinguish from
the original and which ones were the easiest for the listeners to
detect. From the simple sum of all the scores obtained by all
participants for each title we can tell whether it was easy or
difficult for participants to distinguish the original and the
different MP3 encodings (see table scores).

By no means do classical recordings always have an advantage in this
respect, and in the case of some pieces, participants were
consistently wrong in their choices. For example, the Arabic Dance of
Edvard Grieg's Peer Gynt encoded at 128 kbps was preferred over the
original by more than half of our participants. The compression may
have eliminated some small weaknesses of the recording, perhaps a
roughness of the woodwind players. On the other hand, Chic's
'Jusagroove', a very dynamic and tight funk, was correctly identified
by most listeners.

In order to further understand this phenomenon we did some additional
investigation of the test results. We were particularly interested in
the causes of the difficulties. Did the testers have problems
distinguishing high-quality MP3s at 256 kbps from lower quality ones
at 128 kbps, or did the MP3s sound better to them than the original
CD?

To determine this, we modified a bit the evaluation procedure.
According to people's prejudices about MP3 quality, one would expect
that 128 kbps sounds the worst, 256K would be preferred next, and that
the original Audio-CD sample delivers the best sound. So, we re-scored
the test results; every test sample that was identified as 128 kbps
received one point, a sample identified as 256 kbps garnered two
points, and a sample identified as the original CD got three points.
This was done for each sample regardless of whether the listener's
identification of the sample source was correct or not. If a listener
could not hear any difference between any of the three sample
versions, we assessed all of them as 'CD quality' and gave each
sample
three points.

Then we added up all the points for each sample over all listeners. If
all 14 people had always guessed correctly, then each of the pieces of
music would show the same distribution for its samples: 14 points for
a sample at 128 kbps, 28 points for a 256 kbps sample, and 42 points
of the original CD. But a completely different picture emerged. For
those pieces which our listeners most frequently guessed wrong, the
MP3 encoded samples were judged in general to be superior to the CD
sample.

Our biggest surprise, however, came when we added up all the points
achieved by all of the samples at each quality level: 128 kbps, 256
kbps, and CD-ROM. The samples at 256 kbps and the original CD samples
achieved precisely the same score of 501 points. The 128 kbps samples
clearly scored lower, with a total of 439 points. For those interested
in statistics, these values of 501 and 439 differ significantly in
statistical terms, with a probability of error of one percent (in
scientific investigations, statistical deviations are considered
significant when the probability is 5% or less). And between the 256
kbps and CD samples, which got exactly the same score, there was, of
course, no statistical difference.

Summing Up

In plain language, this means that our musically trained test
listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128
kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples.
But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD,
no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The
testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they
took the original CD samples themselves.

The fact that some of the 128 kbps samples were consistently judged to
be better than their original CD counterparts by this skilled group -
even by the best among them - stunned our editor (who participated in
the test although his results were not included in the evaluation, and
had to confess that he got only 15 points). It seems safe to declare
that there is no musical genre that is especially well-suited or
ill-suited to compression. It is apparent that there are quite other
factors related to the technical aspects of recording that will later
adversely affect the results at low bit rates.

This article will not end the ongoing debate of whether the use of MP3
compression is a reasonable or unreasonable procedure. Audiophile fans
that concern themselves with brand names and are status conscious will
never listen to MP3s, no matter how many tests may prove that the
sound experience is equivalent in both cases. Skeptics ("They are all
sissies at c't; I would certainly have heard the difference") should
get encoders and CD burners and then submit themselves - perhaps even
using the same pieces and under similar conditions - to their own
'Pepsi-Test'.

cm

References:

[1] Carsten Meyer, Doppelt blind, MP3 gegen CD: Der H=F6rtest [Double
blind, MP3 versus CD: The Listening Test], c't March, 2000, p. 144

Results of Readers' Listening Test
Test Listener a (b) c d e f g h i j k l m (n)
Points/Title
(stat. random average:
11 points)
Chic - Jusagroove 3 3 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
31
Brahms - Ungarische T=E4nze 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 1 0
14
Donald Fagen - IGY 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 3
12
Anne S. von Otter - I'm a Stranger Here... 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
1 0 3 3 3
16
Peter Gabriel - Steam 3 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 3 1
22
Leonard Cohen - First We Take Manhattan 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 3
0 3 0 0
18
Orff - Carmina/Gnomus 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 1 1 1 3
19
Shostakovitch - Jazz/2 March 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
15
Bill Whithers - Ain't No Sunshine 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
7
Adrian Legg - Norah Hanleys Waltz 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
3 1
8
Liszt - Apr=E9s une lecture du Dante 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 0
0 0
10
Mussorgsky - Bilder einer Ausstellung 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 1
8
Sara K. - Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
1 1
14
Grieg - Arabischer Tanz 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
9
Marla Glen - The Cost Of Freedom 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 3 1
0 3
15
Anne S. von Otter - Quello di Tito =E8 il volto 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
8
Clair Marlo - All For The Feeling 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 1
1 0
29
Points/Listener 20 26 19 20 14 15 15 15 17 16 16
22 17 23
1

[[email protected]]

further to my earlier post, go with 192 at least if not higher

i had an mp3 player in my 99 accord and never look back at all

daniel

[Sean Scott]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Like many of you, over the past few years I have switched from listening
> to
> CD's to now almost exclusively listening to MP3's. All my MP3's have a
> sampling rate of 128 or higher, and generally speaking I am pleased with
> the
> sound quality.
>
> However, sometimes with some songs I get the distinct impression that I'm
> missing something. It's hard to define (there's a French word I'm
> searching
> for) what it is that's missing, but I can best describe it by a lack of
> fullness, or perhaps a sense of "flatness", a two dimensional
> representation rather than three dimensional (geez, I sound like a real
> audiophile dweeb). Of course, with other songs I don't sense this at all.
>

A side effect of listening to compressed audio, the only way to avoid it is
to avoid listening to compressed files (MP3s) I actually listen to my MP3s
at 192 or higher. Try lowering the compression and see if this helps.

> Does anybody else feel this way? Have you done anything about it? Are
> there any good tips out there to make MP3's sound better? Do any of you
> refuse to use MP3's because of this?
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[MZ]

> That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
> sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else finds
> a
> noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.

Yes, using a good encoder set at high variable bitrate should make
differences between the mp3 and the original for the most part
unrecognizable. I use the LAME encoder at something like 320kbps VBR (which
tends to average out at about 192).

[Daniel Snooks]

MOSFET wrote
>> Antispammer wrote
>> it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
>> normal
>> song would be 8-9mb
>>
> That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
> sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else finds
> a
> noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.
>
> MOSFET

I also noticed a distinct lack of "depth"? when listening to MP3 (128)
compared to the original CD the songs were ripped from. I am in the process
of upgrading my ripped collection to 320. I cannot hear any difference with
the compression at 320. Space isn't an issue, hard drives are cheap these
days. At 320 the average disc will take approx. 170MB

Also ... just to nit-pick, it is not the sampling rate that we are
discussing here. That is still going to be 44kHz (I think that's the norm).
It's the compression that is the issue (as MZ was mentioning in his reply)
128 is a much HIGHER compression then 320 which is why the files are
smaller. Someone along the way told me that at high compression the range of
frequencies is cut off (something like 30Hz - 18,000 Hz) and similar
frequency patterns are simplified to conserve space. I am not an expert on
the encoding of MP3, so all I can do is throw this out for the wolves to
chew on. With lower compression (192, 256, 320) not as many corners need to
be cut ... hence the better replica.

Dan

[Dark1]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>> it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
>> normal
>> song would be 8-9mb
>>
> That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
> sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else finds
> a
> noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
I can tell a definite difference between a 128k and 192k.. though mostly in
rock.. definetly in acoustic stuff, not so much in rap..personally 192 is
the min rate I'll bother burning.. anything from original or lossless always
gets 256k with me.. can't say above 192 is obvious to me, but like most
things audio, headroom is what it's all about;)

[Dark1]

"Tony F" > wrote in message
...
>I stay at a bitrate of 160 or 192 whenever I record MP3s to CDs. I also
>record them onto CD in music files, not MP3s. From my very limited
>understanding, the SQ is much better using audio files vs. MP3. I don't
>mind only have 80 minutes or so per each CD. I honestly can't hear the
>difference between them and a CD.
>
> Tony
>
that's because there is no difference, it's already been compressed to MP3,
burning it to audio format doesn't get that quality back..
once it's been compressed, the quality lost is gone.. no getting it back..







>
> --
> 2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
> Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500
> Amplifiers, Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped
> In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In
> Aperiodic Enclosure
>
> 2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
> Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Like many of you, over the past few years I have switched from listening
>> to
>> CD's to now almost exclusively listening to MP3's. All my MP3's have a
>> sampling rate of 128 or higher, and generally speaking I am pleased with
>> the
>> sound quality.
>>
>> However, sometimes with some songs I get the distinct impression that I'm
>> missing something. It's hard to define (there's a French word I'm
>> searching
>> for) what it is that's missing, but I can best describe it by a lack of
>> fullness, or perhaps a sense of "flatness", a two dimensional
>> representation rather than three dimensional (geez, I sound like a real
>> audiophile dweeb). Of course, with other songs I don't sense this at
>> all.
>>
>> Does anybody else feel this way? Have you done anything about it? Are
>> there any good tips out there to make MP3's sound better? Do any of you
>> refuse to use MP3's because of this?
>>
>> MOSFET
>>
>>
>
>

[Brett]

have a look at this article,
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/
its got comparisons between frequency dynamics in pictures and graphs
showing the delta signals, pretty interesting.

I generally make sure any mp3 i use is at 160 or higher

"Dark1" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
> >> normal
> >> song would be 8-9mb
> >>
> > That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
> > sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else
finds
> > a
> > noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.
> >
> > MOSFET
> >
> >
> I can tell a definite difference between a 128k and 192k.. though mostly
in
> rock.. definetly in acoustic stuff, not so much in rap..personally 192 is
> the min rate I'll bother burning.. anything from original or lossless
always
> gets 256k with me.. can't say above 192 is obvious to me, but like most
> things audio, headroom is what it's all about;)
>
>

[MZ]

Comparing the frequency response to the original is problematic because the
encoder is DESIGNED to basically remove frequencies according to various
psychophysical parameters. It's not designed to try to reproduce the
signal. So there's no reason one should try to compare signal A to signal
B.

The only true way to analyze the success of the encoder is to see whether or
not it achieves what it tried to achieve while introducing as few artifacts
as possible. This would require mathematically analyzing the original
signal with the algorithm in mind, and then comparing the encoded file to
that.


"Brett" > wrote in message
u...
> have a look at this article,
> http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/
> its got comparisons between frequency dynamics in pictures and graphs
> showing the delta signals, pretty interesting.
>
> I generally make sure any mp3 i use is at 160 or higher
>
> "Dark1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> it's minimised though if the MP3 is recorded in 320kbps. But then a
>> >> normal
>> >> song would be 8-9mb
>> >>
>> > That's interesting. I have not really experimented much with higher
>> > sampling rates, but I think I will now. I'm curious if anyone else
> finds
>> > a
>> > noticable difference between 128 and higher rates.
>> >
>> > MOSFET
>> >
>> >
>> I can tell a definite difference between a 128k and 192k.. though mostly
> in
>> rock.. definetly in acoustic stuff, not so much in rap..personally 192 is
>> the min rate I'll bother burning.. anything from original or lossless
> always
>> gets 256k with me.. can't say above 192 is obvious to me, but like most
>> things audio, headroom is what it's all about;)
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike]

I never listen to anything below 192 kbps. It's not even worth it. I
prefer to use 192-320 variating bitrates, also known as VBR's. I
usually burn my mp3s into audio form onto CDRs because I don't like
having to scroll through songs on my HU :)

[MOSFET]

> Also ... just to nit-pick, it is not the sampling rate that we are
> discussing here. That is still going to be 44kHz (I think that's the
norm).
> It's the compression that is the issue (as MZ was mentioning in his reply)
> 128 is a much HIGHER compression then 320 which is why the files are
> smaller. Someone along the way told me that at high compression the range
of
> frequencies is cut off (something like 30Hz - 18,000 Hz) and similar
> frequency patterns are simplified to conserve space. I am not an expert on
> the encoding of MP3, so all I can do is throw this out for the wolves to
> chew on. With lower compression (192, 256, 320) not as many corners need
to
> be cut ... hence the better replica.
>
> Dan
>
Thank you for the clarification. I learn so much from this forum, I really
appreciate it.

MOSFET

[MZ]

> Also ... just to nit-pick, it is not the sampling rate that we are
> discussing here. That is still going to be 44kHz (I think that's the
> norm). It's the compression that is the issue (as MZ was mentioning in his
> reply) 128 is a much HIGHER compression then 320 which is why the files
> are smaller. Someone along the way told me that at high compression the
> range of frequencies is cut off (something like 30Hz - 18,000 Hz) and
> similar frequency patterns are simplified to conserve space. I am not an
> expert on the encoding of MP3, so all I can do is throw this out for the
> wolves to chew on. With lower compression (192, 256, 320) not as many
> corners need to be cut ... hence the better replica.

High frequencies take more "bandwidth" (not really the appropriate term
perhaps) to encode than lower frequencies. That's why it's typical to see
the signal low-pass filtered rather than high-pass filtered. Some encoders,
like LAME, allow you to adjust the crossover point. The "alt-preset
extreme" option sets it somewhere in the 19kHz range, which is more than
high enough. For what it's worth, many folks can't hear higher than about
17kHz anyway, and even if you've got superb hearing you'll have trouble
getting that in the car. But, as you said, hard drive space is so cheap now
that there's no sense in cutting corners.

In fact, some folks are simply transferring their entire collection to wav
thereby leaving it completely uncompressed - screw mp3! Mp3 was useful when
hard drive space was at a premium. And, for the small portable players,
which still tend to have limitations on space, you could always "encode on
the go" - that is, you simply encode it from wav to mp3 when you transfer it
onto the portable device. With CPUs these days regularly over 2 or 3GHz, it
takes no time at all to batch encode.

[B. Peg]

Very interesting read. Thanks.

Liked how professionals could not distinguish between a mp3 ripped at 256
and a regular CD. More surprised when some actually liked the 128 rip
better!

Sort of like wine tasting when the two dollar bottle wins.

B~

[Dark1]

"B. Peg" > wrote in message
...
> Very interesting read. Thanks.
>
> Liked how professionals could not distinguish between a mp3 ripped at 256
> and a regular CD. More surprised when some actually liked the 128 rip
> better!
>
> Sort of like wine tasting when the two dollar bottle wins.
>
> B~
>
>

sounds kind of like the tube amp deal to me.. sometimes something that isn't
quite the original just sounds better..

[[email protected]]

> Dark1 wrote: sounds kind of like the tube amp deal to me.. sometimes
something that isn't quite the original just sounds better.

Well. The original post started off with a question of just how good
mp3 are. Like tube , mp3 is just as good as cd in the setting of this
newsgroup-car audio. Even professionals have problem in the
newsgroup of audio high-end.

Daniel

[B. Peg]

> i had an mp3 player in my 99 accord and never look back at all

I got a Kenwood in mine (one of their first models of CD/Mp3 combo players).
Oddly, the thing skips more on CD's than MP3 files I've burned. After a
couple of years, the thing is skipping worse so the mechanicals are probably
wearing out or the laser/optics are kaput.

B~

[Rick Brandt]

"B. Peg" > wrote in message
...
>> i had an mp3 player in my 99 accord and never look back at all
>
> I got a Kenwood in mine (one of their first models of CD/Mp3 combo players).
> Oddly, the thing skips more on CD's than MP3 files I've burned. After a
> couple of years, the thing is skipping worse so the mechanicals are probably
> wearing out or the laser/optics are kaput.

IMO MP3s are (predominantly) used in portables and in cars where the difference
between 128 and the lower compression rates is not going to be noticeable. One
of the BIG advantages of a car HU that plays MP3 encoded disks is that you can
get a dozen or more albums on one disk making a changer a completely obsolete
piece of equipment. No way would I want to give that up by going to larger
files.

For storing them on the PC...maybe.

[Eric Desrochers]

Another thing to consider is the quality of the encoder itself. They
are not all equal.

It's not a problem now, but 5 years ago, encoding songs was a 5-6
minutes process *per song*, so "faster" encoders appeared at the expense
of the quality of the encoding. So people used higher bitrate to offset
the bad sound.

Personnally, I'd take a great 128 kbps joint stereo over a lossy 192
kbps. VBR at about 140 are also excellent.

The efficiency of the encoder also vary between formats. I tried the
Apple AAC format and it sound way better than mp3 at equal rate.
Actually, if I was to re-encode my entire librairy in AAC, I would
choose 96 kbps, it's better than 128 kbps mp3 and produce tiny files!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[MOSFET]

First of all, thank you to everyone who responded, I gained a valuable
education on this subject simply by reading all of the posts. I am now
going to re-"rip" many of my CD's at a higher compression rate (I use the
LAME encoder). I had heard in the past that there was little difference
going higher than 128, but after reading all of these posts I know now that
is not the case.

> of the BIG advantages of a car HU that plays MP3 encoded disks is that you
can
> get a dozen or more albums on one disk making a changer a completely
obsolete
> piece of equipment. No way would I want to give that up by going to
larger
> files.

Well, that's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? When you get right
down to it, aren't many of life's important decisions the choice between
quality versus convenince? Do you want lots of files or do you want really
good sound? Hmmm....

MOSFET

[[email protected]]

Razorlame
--alt-preset fast extreme

Don't ever use 128. Garbage.

[[email protected]]

>High frequencies take more "bandwidth" (not really the appropriate
term
>perhaps) to encode than lower frequencies.

Which I guess explains why the most noticable SQ problem in mp3's
recorded at lower bitrates is the swishy highs. Go with 192kbps+ and
mp3's are decent.. 128, meh..

>In fact, some folks are simply transferring their entire collection to
wav
>thereby leaving it completely uncompressed - screw mp3! Mp3 was
useful when
>hard drive space was at a premium.

I havent ever heard of anyone doing that.. I'm sure some do, but at
~50Mb/song, thats only 20 songs per gig of hd space, 200g drive only
holds 4000 songs.. As opposed to 40k in 192kbps mp3.. I dont think
..wav's sound 10x as good as mp3s, so I'll just stick with those..

[haha]

wrote:
> further to my earlier post, go with 192 at least if not higher
>

Absolutely spot on. I am not an "audio snob" but I can always pick an
MP3 at 128 and the rolled off treble gets really annoying in my $5000
car system. I always encode at 320 for the car, and can't tell any
difference between that and uncompressed cd.