"CD Quality" MP3

[Andy Fish]

Hi,

I have seen much discussion about the relative merits of various lossy audio
compression formats at relatively low bitrates (96, 128 and even 64 kbit/s)
but little about high bitrate compression.

This is becoming particularly relevant for me as I notice that
www.allofmp3.com now offers some stuff in lossless formats but, paying by
the megabyte, it's about 3 times more expensive than 320kbit/s lossy

so I did a couple of tests (Joss Stone's "Super Duper love" and Eric
Clapton's "If I had posession over judgement day").

downloaded them in 320kbit mp3, 320kbit ogg, and lossless. burned them all
to an audio CD and stuck it in the hi-fi. The system is an arcam cd92, audio
innovations series 500 and JM lab cobalt 816 (if you're not familiar with
this kit, it's roughly $1500 per piece).

I can't claim to be a real hi-fi nut, and the system is not optimised 100%,
but I couldn't reliably tell the difference between the 3 versions.
Sometimes I thought there were differences but I couldn't repeatedly spot
them in a blind test.

Just my two cents. I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has
done similar tests. Like I say, most of the comparisons I have seen on the
web have been at much lower bitrates than this.

Andy

[John Langill]

Andy,

Roxio (Easy CD Creator) gives the following comparisons for MP3 (all at 44.1
kHz sampling rate):

128 Kbps - near CD quality (11.0:1)
160 Kbps - good CD quality (8.8:1)
192 Kbps - better than CD quality (7.4:1)
224 Kbps - (not commented) (6.3:1)
256 Kbps - studio quality (5.5:1)
320 Kbps - audiophile quality (4.4:1)

As I understand it, 128 Kbps is generally considered to be a reasonable
compromise between sound quality and the quantity of material that can be
recorded on a CD. Obviously, quantity decreases as quality increases.

Hope this is of some help.

John

"Andy Fish" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I have seen much discussion about the relative merits of various lossy
audio
> compression formats at relatively low bitrates (96, 128 and even 64
kbit/s)
> but little about high bitrate compression.

[wkearney99]

> 128 Kbps - near CD quality (11.0:1)
> 160 Kbps - good CD quality (8.8:1)
> 192 Kbps - better than CD quality (7.4:1)
> 224 Kbps - (not commented) (6.3:1)
> 256 Kbps - studio quality (5.5:1)
> 320 Kbps - audiophile quality (4.4:1)
>
> As I understand it, 128 Kbps is generally considered to be a reasonable
> compromise between sound quality and the quantity of material that can be
> recorded on a CD. Obviously, quantity decreases as quality increases.

I find that anything less than 192k introduces noticeable artifacts. Generally
it's a matter of making the music sound 'tinny' or mechanical. It's enough to
be irritating. I've also listened to the same music from CD and at 192k
(simultaneously from CD source and AUX mp3) and find that it's certainly NOT the
same as CD quality. It's "good enough" to strike the balance between
convenience and disk space but it's not as good as the source CD. Thus I've
found it's acceptable enough to use 192k because it offers the best balance
between having a boatload of tracks on hand at a quality level that doesn't
generally distract from the material itself.

-Bill Kearney